Meta calls €200M EU fine over pay-or-consent ad model 'unlawful'

Meta has come out swinging following the European Commission's decision that its pay-or-consent model falls foul of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). In a post, the company stated: "This decision is both incorrect and unlawful, and we are appealing it." It then cites previous judgments to support its argument that it should be …

[nematoad]

Nice try.

Meta

You are not in Kansas anymore.

By what measure is the fine 'unlawful'?

Maybe if you were only doing business in the US then the EU would have no jurisdiction, but you aren't.

You play by the rules where you trade or you get out.

Uncle Donald will not be able to help you out with this however much you wish he could.

[seven of five]

Form an orderly queue

I bet quite a few people would like to give meta all they deserve. Let me just add a few nails to my cluebat...

[codejunky]

According to Meta, national courts and data protection authorities, including in France, Denmark, and Germany, have given "consistent support" for "business models that provide a paid subscription alternative to consent for personal data use for personalized ads."

But not the European Commission, which handed down a €200 million ($228 million) fine for the Meta's "consent or pay" ad model in April.

It doesnt matter what individual members want they are not sovereign countries anymore. You need to brown envelope the EU bureaucrats. Of course this is about governments and not users so the proles just have to live with whatever the rulers dictate.

[Gordon 10]

Stop mapping your delusions onto random stories.

[codejunky]

@Gordon 10

"Stop mapping your delusions onto random stories."

And for our entertainment would you care to explain what is the delusion? Note what was said- national courts and data protection authorities, including in France, Denmark, and Germany, have given "consistent support"...But not the European Commission.

I have trimmed it to make it easier for you to understand. So if those member countries are happy with Meta but the EU commission isnt and therefore only the EU commissions opinion matters...

Dont hurt yourself of course I wouldnt want you to have a migraine but would you try to articulate a relevant thought in reply to my comment?

[Headley_Grange]

@CodeJunky

Any chance of you going behind a paywall?

[codejunky]

Re: @CodeJunky

@Headley_Grange

"Any chance of you going behind a paywall?"

No need to donate to me thanks but I appreciate you value my comments.

[Like a badger]

Re: @CodeJunky

Come, come now. It wasn't specified what currency your paywall should utilise. How about dog's eggs?

[codejunky]

Re: @CodeJunky

@Like a badger

"Come, come now. It wasn't specified what currency your paywall should utilise. How about dog's eggs?"

Considering they both went for derisory comments instead of actually having anything to say they couldnt afford to pay with an actual thought.. I am amused they felt so compelled to respond when they had nothing to say.

[werdsmith]

Re: @CodeJunky

You could use the currency of the following EU countries:

Denmark.

Sweden.

Hungary.

Poland.

Czech Republic.

Bulgaria.

Romania.

Croatia\

None of them use the Euro because they are sovereign countries.

[codejunky]

Re: @CodeJunky

@werdsmith

"None of them use the Euro because they are sovereign countries."

Fantastic! Denmark was listed by you as sovereign AND by Meta as giving consistent support so if Meta limits these activities to France, Denmark, Germany, etc the EU commission doesnt get to step in and fine Meta?

The answer to that answers the sovereignty question. Just because they print their own currency doesnt mean the EU doesnt rule over them.

*Edit: I do want to say I appreciate you posting an actual reply in vast contrast to the previous responses

[werdsmith]

Re: @CodeJunky

But you are a bit desperate, another squirmy response.

The EU countries operate an agreement. At any time, as has been proven, a nation may step out of the agreement. Because they are sovereign - they can make their own choice.

But Scotland, so far, has to rely on Westminster allowing it to have a referendum before Westminster will consider it leaving the United Kingdom. So it is not sovereign.

[codejunky]

Re: @CodeJunky

@werdsmith

"But you are a bit desperate, another squirmy response."

Where am I squirming? So far I have stated simple fact that it doesnt matter if the member countries are supportive of Meta (as per article) the EU is the one in charge and decided to slap down facebook. I didnt say anything about right or wrong, I just stated simple fact. You mentioned some members printing their own currency as proving their sovereignty and I would agree that having control of your own currency does give you more of that freedom, but being in the EU puts them under EU bureaucratic control (over their localised bureaucratic control).

I half expected EU defenders to jump in saying the EU is protecting its citizens over the desires of a few member countries. As I said I appreciate your response as relevant in response as I seem to have triggered a few others.

"The EU countries operate an agreement. At any time, as has been proven, a nation may step out of the agreement. Because they are sovereign - they can make their own choice."

Do you mean stepping out such as brexit? Or some of them negotiating membership while holding onto their currency? (Genuine question).

There have been a couple of instances of EU interference in member country elections and punishing members who dare vote the 'wrong way'. Or even members deciding to control their borders only to be punished into compliance.

"But Scotland, so far, has to rely on Westminster allowing it to have a referendum before Westminster will consider it leaving the United Kingdom. So it is not sovereign."

I dont think you will find many Scots who disagree (or English either). In fact they even had an independence referendum to leave the union, as well as not having their own currency (as per your previous comment).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Gordon 10

So, you are repeating Meta arguments? I hope you got a free subscription for that?

They didn't provide any proof of the nonsense they are spouting, and neither did you.

There is absolutely no support from CNIL in France to Meta, as an example (you can search on their site).

Courts don't give support to foreign entities either, they apply the laws that Meta doesn't follow.

And in these maters it is usually Ireland data protection authority that is leading the fray against US data stealing corporations, not the local ones.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Gordon 10

@codejunkie

Don't you think FIFTY downvotes are reply enough to ones EU ravings, hmm?

[codejunky]

Re: @Gordon 10

@AC

"Don't you think FIFTY downvotes are reply enough to ones EU ravings, hmm?"

It is not up to me how many feel the need to downvote. Just as its not up to me how many feel they have an actual response. And I am sure of those many who can click a mouse might even be able to articulate a reasonable comment in response (so far werdsmith is the only one to put together an actual response). 50 downvotes to 1 actual comment in response.

Seems my ravings might hit a nerve but be correct

[Anonymous Coward]

You're Nick Clegg?

Not sovereign? Didn't Brexit prove the opposite. If the UK weren't sovereign it couldn't have left, or do you mean that with how bad it turned out, no EU country would dare to inflict that upon itself?

Surely it is far cheaper to brown envelope a few of the 27 member states to block this, rather than try to buy the EU itself?

[codejunky]

@AC

@AC

"You're Nick Clegg?"

Didnt he campaign to remain in the EU?

"Not sovereign? Didn't Brexit prove the opposite"

No. You are thinking of some sort of force such as occupation.

"If the UK weren't sovereign it couldn't have left, or do you mean that with how bad it turned out, no EU country would dare to inflict that upon itself?"

If this is supposed to be bad I can see why anti EU parties are doing so well that member countries must overturn election results and ban people from running for government.

"Surely it is far cheaper to brown envelope a few of the 27 member states to block this, rather than try to buy the EU itself?"

Not at all, the opposite is much easier. A concentration of power with fewer to bribe vs distributed power of many more makes bribing the EU cheaper than bribing all the member governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @AC

Bribes?

Are you speaking of the USA?

Oh, sorry, it is part there of the "free speech" of corporations, this is absolutely not a bribe...

[codejunky]

Re: @AC

@AC

"Are you speaking of the USA?

Oh, sorry, it is part there of the "free speech" of corporations, this is absolutely not a bribe..."

Same issue yes

[Long John Silver]

A world without social media?

How else would morons fill their time?

How else would brash 'celebrities' and 'influencers' make their mark?

How else would politicians, and two-bit self-declared statesmen, offer knee-jerk reactions to events and, of course, keep themselves in the public view?

How else can the marketing industry grab attention for minimal effort?

How else might plebeians experience the joys of being followers?

How else may 'the followed' feel important?

How else could people enjoy the thrill of joining in 'viral' cascades of nonsense?

How else could 'the woke' ply their trade?

How else may Zuckerberg, and similar people, revel in their deep contributions to culture?

[SomeRandom1]

Re: A world without social media?

Not seeing any downsides here.

[Mentat74]

Re: A world without social media?

Well....

- Less Nazi's...

- less people dead because of easily preventable diseases

- Less people dead because of a stupid dare

- Less right-wing politicians being able to spread their lies to a large population

I don't see any downsides either...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: A world without social media?

Less Nazi's

I trust we can retain their grammarian ilk.

[ChrisElvidge]

Re: A world without social media?

If you're being grammarian, fewer not less.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: A world without social media?

Not to mention the apostrophe

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: A world without social media?

Half a Nazi is better than a whole one, surely?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: A world without social media?

Fewer people using incorrect grammar‽

[Xalran]

Re: A world without social media?

Just for the fun of it. ( obviously don't take my answers too seriously )

How else would morons fill their time?

They would go to the pub and actually socialize with each other... it would raise the moronic level overall ... Maybe to the point that some leave the moron level.

How else would brash 'celebrities' and 'influencers' make their mark?

the real celebrities would find ways, like going back to the good old tabloid paparazzi shotrs... as for the influencers, they would need to actually find a real job to earn the money they earn.

How else would politicians, and two-bit self-declared statesmen, offer knee-jerk reactions to events and, of course, keep themselves in the public view?

Presse Conferences and Press Releases... yes it's more work and it takes more time to diffuse through the world at large, but it's similar.

How else can the marketing industry grab attention for minimal effort?

I have faith in the marketdroids, they will always find ways... And actually it will be good for them, as they will have to put some decent effort into producing things that grab our attention.

How else might plebeians experience the joys of being followers?

there's no joy in being a follower except in a few circumstances (say in a Tour de France Peleton, where you work less than the guys in front against the air... and even then you' probably prefer being in front as it would be a chance to win the stage )

How else may 'the followed' feel important?

with the exception of the so called influencers that needs a following to be alive, the rest probably don't give a $FSCK.

How else could people enjoy the thrill of joining in 'viral' cascades of nonsense?

It would stop the stupids from ending up in hospital or dead over an idiotic viral challenge. ( It won't stop all of them as some will still go for idiotic challenge after a round of pub crawling but it would limit the scope & scale )

How else could 'the woke' ply their trade?

How else may Zuckerberg, and similar people, revel in their deep contributions to culture?

[Dan 55]

As much as it pains me to say this...

... Meta is right.

Here's Heise covered by the German DPR and GDPR -> Heise Online

Here's The Sun covered by ICO and UK-GDPR -> The Sun

Can you spot the difference between these pop-ups and Meta's pop-up?

Either everyone should be able to offer "Pay or OK" or nobody should. Unfortunately "Pay or OK" effectively makes the GDPR useless as hardly anyone will choose to pay, but then national DPRs shouldn't have allowed "Pay or OK" for traditional media in the first place.

[abend0c4]

Re: As much as it pains me to say this...

It seems that Meta was fined under DMA provisions which wouldn't apply to Heise or even The Sun. But I agree that this is an area in which market dominance shouldn't be relevant - I'm not sure how you could even give meaningful consent to a "pay or be tracked" contract when neither side may know the potential consequences of taking the "free" option.

[Graham Cobb]

Re: As much as it pains me to say this...

Market dominance is certainly relevant. Much more so for social media than for newspapers, in fact.

Social media relies on, and builds, network effects. Market dominance in social media means that a lot of people have no choice but to use your site. Using a competitor doesn't let you contact the people who have chosen the market leader. That is completely different from, for example, being the market leading newspaper - that doesn't stop people being able to access news using competitors.

[Headley_Grange]

Re: As much as it pains me to say this...

I can't see anthing (Noscript?) but I assume you're alluding to the "subscribe or see ads" pop-ups that many papers (in the UK) show. I'm not sure of the legality in the UK now we're not in the EU.

Howerve, I agree with you - it should be a level playing field. If the business model is only viable on the basis of stealing my info and re-selling it then I don't care if they go bust. No other "we have to steal stuff" business model would be allowed. What Meta is saying, effectively, is that virtually no one would use it if they had to pay, but they aren't exactly on the bones of their arse so I don't think anyone will buy that as an argument for getting away with what they want. I assume (happy to be corrected) that the reason the EU is going after Meta and not the Sun is that Meta is on their big game list (whatever it's called) based on how many EU users they have. If they win against the likes of Meta, Google and such then the smaller offenders like The Sun will only need a warning letter, I guess.

[Dan 55]

Re: As much as it pains me to say this...

The EU aren't bothered with going after The Sun since Brexit. They are bothered about UK-GDPR but only in the sense if it is adequate to hold EU residents' data. The EU wouldn't go after Heise either as "Pay or OK" is legal in Germany and other EU countries but not all of them.

The only reason the EU can fine Meta is because they're doing something which is illegal in some EU countries - in those countries where "Pay or OK" is illegal, Meta should be offering "Reject or OK". But they can't just fine Meta for using "Pay or OK" because that's legal in many EU countries and it's an option used by other media companies in those countries.

[captain veg]

Re: As much as it pains me to say this...

Actually this (the Meta story) isn't about "pay, or see ads". It's about "pay, or accept tracking cookies". EU law is crystal clear: with some narrow technical exceptions cookies may only be placed with the user's consent, and the experience must not be degraded by refusing them. Meta can (and will) continue to place ads, but they won't be chosen according to cookie data. It's not clear to me how much this would really affect Meta, given that most users are logged in anyway.

-A.

[I could be a dog really]

Re: As much as it pains me to say this...

I could be going off on the wrong tangent, but going from memory there is a difference.

AIUI it is allowed to basically say "you pay one way OR another" - with one way being to actually hand over money, the other being to hand over information instead. Many services offer a choice between two or more of "fully add supported", "pay a little, still get ads, but not personalised", "pay more and have an ad and slurp free experience".

But what Meta were doing (as I understood the reports at the time) was basically offer "you can hand over money - but we'll still slurp all your data and do what the heck we want, where we want, in total disregard to GDPR", What they offered in exchange was to show less targeted ads - what they didn't offer was an opt-out from illegal data harvesting.

The reality is that if they'd offered a paid for "non-slurping" option right from the start (and otherwise not thrown away any goodwill & reputation they had) then they could have built a legal and viable business. The problem now is that their business cannot succeed if they comply with EU/UK law - they've proved too many times that they really don't care and will screw you even if they've said they won't (and even if they've sold you a non-screwover option), so who is going to trust them now ?

[Headley_Grange]

Re: As much as it pains me to say this...

I still don't undrstand the "business can't survive" bit. The advertising budgets aren't going to change much so when all the huge players are playing the same way then the money will spread about the same way, won't it. No one's going to pay to use Meta, but neither is anyone going to pay to use Google search or Xitter, so they'll all be in the same boat. What am I missing?

[Richard 12]

Re: As much as it pains me to say this...

No, they're unlawful as well.

"Advert supported" is lawful.

"Pay to avoid adverts" is lawful.

"Pay to avoid being tracked" is obviously unlawful, because it is the exact opposite of the "freely given consent" the law requires.

Once Meta exhaust the appeals, those others will also be fined.

[Chet Mannly]

Re: As much as it pains me to say this...

"Either everyone should be able to offer "Pay or OK" or nobody should."

Nobody should. Simple.

I really hope this sticks. Since Meta pulled this cr@p everybody and his dog has been slapping 'pay or accept tracking from 1096 partners'* on their websites.

*Actually a real number that was on a website today...

[StewartWhite]

Social media - the world's leading oxymoron

Q: A world without social media. What might that be like?

A: A better world in almost every way. "Social" media is a parasite that's destroying society.

The problem is that Melon, the Zuckerborg et al view Bladerunner and their ilk as a blueprint for the future rather than dystopian fiction.

[nobody who matters]

Re: Social media - the world's leading oxymoron

"A world without social media. What might that be like?"

Some of us are old enough to know the answer to that ;)

I would concur with your answer :)

[Neil Barnes]

Meta deserves fair compensation for the valuable and innovative services

Deserves? Meta is in exactly the same position as the busker in the underground, or the juggler at the cross-roads while the lights are red. They are freely distributing a product, and hoping some might pay for it. And some may, one way or another. But society does _not_ owe Meta a living. They deserve nothing.

[Jonathon Green]

Re: Meta deserves fair compensation for the valuable and innovative services

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Although what I think meta the Zuckburghers deserve, and would constitute fair compensation may differ from what they think they deserve.

They probably had fewer face eating leopards in mind for a start…

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Meta deserves fair compensation for the valuable and innovative services

I have to disagree. Having heard a busker in the London Underground doing an absolutely amazing violin solo of Vivaldi, I'd say a good busker does, in fact, deserve compensation. (And he got some from me.)

Meta, however, is getting their compensation - they're being fined for what they're doing to the general public in violation of the law.

[HuBo]

Cunning (read at your own risks, perils, and expanse)

Quite crafty of the astute pusher to induce dependency and addiction in would-be SM² junkies with seemingly free merchandise until the unwitting fish is well hooked, lined, and sinkered! Or is it ...

I mean, in this game, you (fish junky) are the actual product, and unpaid at it ... monetized through mass commercial surveillance and behavioral analysis that trains recommender AIs to deliver targeted ads (sold by the pusher to advertisers) back to you and to absolutely everyone you know, or can think of, in the whole wide world, everything everywhere all at once (with or without dildo kung-fu).

And well, it's a known business model to sell ads to pay for a free service ... but European consumer groups say: "wait a healthy lifestyle gastronomic minute here my chum", "it's not the same thing when you use my personal efforts and data to optimize and target your ads". "If you do that, then you have to pay ME for it. After all, you're worth a stupefying $1.8 Trillion out of this heretofore insidious spliff racket!". Which is where things get interesting ...

What's a pusher with its pants down to do when faced with such a conundrum of verity? Well, of course, redefine reality in its own image that it is the very nature of freedom to have one's self bloodsuckered into a metaphorical near-death zombie junky state for the privilege of participating in the exclusive underworld of SM² ... or pay for protection!

_{²⁻ SM = Social Media; SM² could also be Social Media Sado Masochist/Masochism, if desired ...}

[HuBo]

Re: Cunning (read at your own risks, perils, and expanse)

... oh, and in other Meta News, after its recent billion dollar hirestravaganza shopping spree (folks from ScaleAI, MS Github, Safe Superintelligence, OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic), it seems Meta Superintelligence Labs (MSL) is now a thing ...

Their perspective might be to favor architectures that "are trying to learn an abstract representation and [then] making predictions in that abstract representation space" (LeCun, 06/30/25; iiuc) rather than garden variety genAI and other dissipated archs (current CoT ...) that fail at even simple reasoning ... prolly worth poking one's eyes out for a peek at what'll happen next there (or suchlikes), imho!

Happy 4ᵗʰ (to the Yanks)!

[Strahd Ivarius]

Re: Cunning (read at your own risks, perils, and expanse)

Meta Superintelligene Lab?

Will it lose like others against Apple ]['s Sargon II on easy mode?

[elsergiovolador]

Brown envelopes

Meta’s whining isn’t outrage - it’s choreography. A rehearsed tantrum to make it look like the EU’s doing something meaningful.

And the Commission? €200 million is pocket lint. Not punishment - payment for the privilege of pretending there are rules.

This isn’t a clash of principles. It’s a handshake in public and a nod behind closed doors.

Meta keeps harvesting. The EU gets headlines. Taxpayers get played.

Consent? Privacy? These are props.

The real agreement is simple: keep the ad money flowing and the citizens pacified.

Meta feigns victimhood. The Commission feigns enforcement.

And both keep getting paid.

If the EU actually wanted to stop surveillance capitalism, Meta would be banned from operating until it proved every bit of data was consensually gathered and fully auditable.

Instead, they fine them 0.1% of annual revenue and call it a reckoning.

This isn’t regulation. It’s collusion with extra paperwork.

[nobody who matters]

Re: Brown envelopes

"The real agreement is simple: keep the ad money flowing and the citizens pacified."

You appear to be another of those who seem to think it all begins and ends with the ads. So many people really do seem to believe that the personal data gathering is merely for serving advertisments, and that is the sum total of the income of organisations such as Meta.

I rather think that the reality is that the bulk of the money comes from where else the rest of us strongly suspect the data is being sold, and who it is being sold to and the purposes it is potentially being sold for.

I think the advertisment revenue is a smokescreen.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Brown envelopes

One doesn't exclude the other, but you are spot on.

[has been]

Bring Back Friends Reunited.

All is forgiven.

It's been downhill since then.

[Jim Whitaker]

Problem (mostly) solved.

What's an advert? Relevant blocker mechanisms work for me. I've even avoided the necessity for a tinfoil hat.

[riverrock83]

Lots of news sites use this model

Loads of news and blogging sites currently use this model - pay or consent - so if this is considered a precedent (and UK law will often still follow EU law) then this could wide spread issues. ICO issued guidance very recently on this that might need re-written: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/online-tracking/consent-or-pay/ ?

[flayman]

Re: Lots of news sites use this model

[quote]

Are “consent or pay” business models compliant with data protection law?

“Consent or pay” models can be compliant with data protection law if you can demonstrate that people can freely give their consent and the models meet the other requirements set out in the law. This guidance provides a set of factors to assess whether people can freely give their consent or not in the context of a “consent or pay” model.

You must document your assessment and be able to justify how your “consent or pay” model is compliant with UK GDPR and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR), taking into account the factors set out in this guidance.

[/quote]

Can be compliant. Must assess whether people can freely give their consent. This could be true in Meta's case, but part of the criticism stems from users being heavily steered towards Meta's preferred option through a confusing interface design and a degradation of the service for users who don't consent for their personal data to be used by the company, which after all is what it's all about with Meta. Also of importance:

“Consent should not be regarded as freely given if the data subject has no genuine or free choice or is unable to refuse or withdraw consent without detriment.”

[David Hicklin]

Re: Lots of news sites use this model

> Are “consent or pay” business models compliant with data protection law?

No issue to pay to not see ANY adverts as that is the business model but I should not have to pay anything for the business model to be compliant with data protection law as that is a legal requirement.

[Chet Mannly]

Re: Lots of news sites use this model

Difference being news and blogging sites provide actual content - Meta just serves up other people's content provided for free.

[flayman]

Thanks Mark, for your input

Please do continue tell us what our laws mean and how they work. If you don't like them, then stop doing business here. I'll only rejoice.

[Jedit]

"poorer outcomes for users, advertisers, and platforms"

I'm failing to see how users get a poorer outcome from not having their data sold to every unscrupulous dogfucker under the sun.

And advertisers? Here's some feedback for you: if you advertise to me on Facebook, I will not buy your product. In fact, I mostly won't even see what it is - as soon as I see "Sponsored" at the top I stop scrolling and immediately report it as spam. Occasionally if I accidentally scroll down too far and it's obvious you'll get a fraud report instead. But in either case, I'll block you. Even if I wanted what you're selling, I wouldn't give you my custom. Because fuck you if you think you can shove tat in my face while I'm talking with friends.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "poorer outcomes for users, advertisers, and platforms"

This. A thousand times this. If you're advertising on Facebook these days, you're probably not a company I want to do business with. Just like any time I see ads from the ad company Moloco - it's a scam or otherwise false. Every single one. (Including the ads for Whiteout Survival, a PvP "strategy" game (minus most of the strategy) uniformly advertised as a single-player adventure game, with NONE of the depicted gameplay being in the actual game. Much less the "earn tons of money for playing games on your phone!!11!1one!!" ads.)

For that matter, most advertising I encounter these days is counterproductive. I'll remember your company/product, but only to avoid it, because of the ad.

[Irongut]

Just block them at the border

Block all Meta traffic as it comes into the EU, nothing of value will be lost and we can run a book on how long it takes Zuck to come begging to be allowed back.

Don't allow him back.

Personally I'd also issue an EU-wide arrest warrant for him but that's just me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Just block them at the border

You can also remind the Mossad that he is giving money to Hamas (like Elon Musk / X), they will take care of him...

[Blackjack]

Every time they protest they should double the fine.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or put interest on the fine. Say 5% per month, compounded monthly. If they somehow actually win an appeal, they don't owe anything. If they lose (which they will), they owe more in interest than the original fine.

[tiggity]

personalized ads

I disagree with the whole idea that these "targeted ads" are better for users.

They are better for companies to slurp data.

I much preferred the old days of context based ads

e.g. If I am searching for prices of a fridges (because mine has reached EOL) then ads for fridges are useful.

With personalized ads I still get fridge ads weeks after I have purchased a replacement fridge so not very useful.

[M.V. Lipvig]

I think I have the solution

Issue everyone who wants one a Digital ID, set up much like usernames are set up today. But, do it in the following manner.

- Set up a Verification site. This site takes a person's information, and issues a Verified code. Once a Verified code is issued, the person's information is deleted. The same Verified code is issued to everyone who signs up during any one hour period.

- The person takes the Verified code to a second site which set up a Digital ID code, much like how usernames are set up today. There is a 1 hour time limit to set this up, from the time the Verification code is given. Otherwise, they must start over. This is the site that performs the actual age verification to websites going forward.

The key to this being anonymous is, the same Verified code is issued to multiple people. Let's say 20,000 people sign up for verification during that hour, then any Digital ID code could be one of 20,000 people. What with the initial verification data being deleted, there would also be no way to tie one person to any specific Digital ID. It would also allow people to have more than one Digital ID.

This may not be perfect but it looks good to me.