I saw another post like “want to use [content ABC] for free & legally? Use this ad bypasser”. This one was on how to play music on a big video platform by using a specific browser to avoid any “annoying ads”.
Setting aside ethical concerns, is it really “legal”?
Some (e.g. one of the most prominent privacy campaigners) claim that terms of use of a digital service are not an enforceable contract.
Sorry, but that’s wrong. *Excessive* or *abusive* terms are unenforceable, but anything reasonable will be enforceable, provided the terms are intelligible (i.e. no hidden meaning) and accessible (you know, that “terms & conditions” [T&Cs] or “terms of service” link, typically in the footer?). It’s even similar across EU countries, despite vast differences on other aspects of contract law.
So *no*, ad blocking is probably not legal – especially not if the website/app T&Cs explicitly state that ads are the consideration for the content.
Plus, by promoting this to others, you’re encouraging others to violate those T&Cs – which could in theory also trigger liability.
“A provider can’t refuse to give me access – that would be illegal!”
In fact, no. No one is “entitled” to benefit from a service – the service provider is allowed to choose under which (reasonable) to offer the service. If you don’t respect those conditions, the provider can choose not to provide the service to you. Not because of who you are, but because you don’t (want to) meet the conditions.
Detection+prevention & bypassing are a cat-and-mouse game, though. Your “privacy-friendly” browser or ad blocker automatically prevents ads from loading there today? Maybe ads will reappear tomorrow, and the next day it will block ads again. Maybe the service will cease working for you, maybe not.
But don’t imagine that the law is on your side.
“But information is meant to be free!”
This sounds familiar. Certain business models evolved after facing similar arguments (e.g. music & video streaming), but the legal position remains that freedom of information doesn’t mean “my freedom to consume whatever I want without any compensation going to the provider”.
Providing any service has a cost. By preventing financial compensation for the service, you are saying “feed me content, at your own cost”. Whether it’s a local news provider or a tech giant, the message is the same, though the financial impact for the former is bigger.
“No, this is about not paying for my data protection rights. Down with AdTech!”
These GDPR/privacy arguments are nice soundbites but are mere allegations. The criticised ad practices are not illegal – I refer to my op-eds below.
– “A critical analysis of the EDPB’s “Pay or Consent” Opinion”: https://lnkd.in/eddQ4yW8
– “Maybe no consent needed for advertising under ePrivacy “cookie” rule?”: https://lnkd.in/eaKp5eEN
– “”Pay or data” has its reasons – even if you disagree”: https://lnkd.in/ed_bdDRE
Given that, perhaps it’s worth reconfiguring your ad blocker for 2025?