“Consent or Pay”: What the New ICO Guidance Means for Publishers (2025)

1. Introduction

Over the past year, the “Consent or Pay” model has taken centre stage for British publishers. What began in 2024 as a handful of websites testing extra paywall options alongside “Reject All” buttons has swiftly grown into a broader trend, largely driven by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) pushing for a visible “Reject All” choice in cookie banners.

Now, in January 2025, the ICO has released detailed new guidance clarifying how “Consent or Pay” can be lawful under UK data protection laws. Alongside this, the regulator announced it aims to bring the top 1,000 websites in the UK into compliance. This latest action confirms that, while the ICO doesn’t prohibit paid alternatives to data-based advertising, publishers must still satisfy the legal requirements for valid consent.

“We recognise that the right to the protection of personal data needs to be balanced against other rights, such as the right to conduct a business. Organisations should be able to conduct business and monetise products or services with the funding models that best suit them.”

In this post, we’ll walk you through the new guidance, examine how it’s structured, and explore how Case Study Two in particular offers a blueprint for independent publishers. We’ll also explain how Clickio Consent’s Built-in Paywall can make it easier to comply and maintain revenue.

2. Quick Recap: “Consent or Pay” in the UK

Back in late 2023, the ICO urged major UK news outlets to ensure a prominent “Reject All” button, triggering anxiety over possible revenue drops if more users declined personalised ads. By 2024, a wave of newsbrands introduced the “Consent or Pay” approach, offering a small paid subscription in lieu of giving up personal data.

This model quickly gained traction, with varied messaging and pricing from The Sun, The Mirror, Mail Online, and others. For details on how “Consent or Pay” evolved, feel free to browse our earlier posts:

• “Reject and Pay”: UK News Publishers’ New GDPR Strategy
• Are Cookie Paywalls Legal in the UK?

These explorations shine a light on how leading publications navigated new rules, user reactions and subscription uptake through the latter half of 2024.

3. The New ICO Guidance

In January 2025, the ICO published:

• A refreshed Online Tracking Strategy outlining ambitions to improve transparency around cookies, apps and connected devices;
• Additional guidance on “consent or pay” to clarify how publishers can offer alternatives to personalised ads without undermining valid consent requirements.

Beyond reinforcing the need for a “Reject All” button, the new guidance underscores how essential it is to ensure that if users do opt out of data-based ads, they are not unfairly penalised nor forced into paying extortionate fees for a comparable service. In other words, “Consent or Pay” is perfectly acceptable so long as your approach meets the benchmark of freely given consent, fairness and transparency.

“If you are implementing a ‘consent or pay’ model, you must make sure that you are able to demonstrate people have freely given their consent for personalised advertising under the ‘consent or pay’ model.”

4. A Brief Overview of the ICO Guidance

The ICO’s guidance is broken down into several main sections, each explaining a key aspect publishers must consider when relying on “Consent or Pay.” Here’s a quick summary:

1. About This Guidance

Sets out the scope and context for “consent or pay” models under UK data protection law. Emphasises that consent must be freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous. Points out that publishers must document how their paywall or subscription model aligns with these legal requirements.

2. Power Imbalance

Focuses on whether users can truly exercise a free choice. If an organisation is so large or indispensable that users effectively have no alternative, or if users face “unfair penalties” for rejecting personal data tracking, the ICO warns that consent may not be valid.

3. Appropriate Fee

Addresses the question: “At what point is the cost to avoid personalised ads so high that people feel forced to consent?” Publishers must set a reasonable fee so that “Pay” feels like a genuine alternative to sharing data.

4. Equivalence

Explores how each option (ad-based or ad-free) should remain consistent in delivering the same core service. Charging for extra bells and whistles is fine, but the ICO expects you to keep the basic offering (e.g. access to news articles) identical so that those who pay aren’t buying an entirely different product.

5. Privacy by Design

Advises publishers to clearly present choices in any cookie banner or CMP interface. This includes not sneaking non-essential tracking by default, ensuring the user interface is straightforward, and providing an easy mechanism to withdraw consent later on.

6. Case Studies

Offers two hypothetical scenarios:

1. A large social network (Case Study One), where a power imbalance may be unavoidably significant due to network effects and platform dominance.
2. A news publisher (Case Study Two), which is more relatable for many smaller or mid-sized outlets. It explains how “consent or pay” can be implemented so that the “free” (ad-supported) and “paid” (ad-free) versions remain genuinely equivalent and fairly priced.

5. Two Case Studies: Why Case Study Two Matters for Independent Publishers

The ICO’s Case Studies section dives deeper into practical examples. Case Study One shows a mammoth social networking site, whose users might struggle to leave because friends and family are all there. This highlights how platform dominance can undermine free consent.

By contrast, Case Study Two outlines a typical news website scenario:

• The core service is offering news content.
• Readers can accept personalised ads or pay a small fee for an ad-free experience.
• The site also has a premium subscription tier that includes extra perks (like puzzles or opinion columns), but crucially, that tier isn’t the only way to avoid targeted ads.
• The publisher must set an appropriate fee for the ad-free route, rather than bundling loads of add-ons that artificially push up the price.

For smaller or mid-tier publishers, Case Study Two is a direct analogue. If you compete with other news sites or have readers who can easily switch, the power imbalance is less likely to be a concern. So, the next step is to ensure your paid option is priced fairly, your default user flow is crystal clear, and your adverts-based version aligns with proper consent collection.

6. Practical Implications for Publishers

Putting the ICO’s guidance into practice means:

1. Genuine Choice
   People must feel genuinely free to say “No” to personal data tracking. If the ad-free route is so expensive as to be pointless, consent isn’t freely given.

2. Equivalence Matters
   Publishers can’t make the free tier missing big chunks of content to force users into paying. Let the user read your core news coverage either way.

3. Fair Pricing
   If you do want to offer extra features, that can sit on a separate “premium” tier. But the fee for simply turning off data-driven ads should reflect the value of privacy, not a random upcharge.

4. Easy Interface
   The layout of your CMP must not “nudge” users into accepting all. The ICO wants clarity, equal prominence for “Reject All” and any subscription pathways, and an obvious method to withdraw consent later.

5. Ongoing Documentation
   As the regulator expands its enforcement to 1,000 sites, publishers should update or carry out new DPIAs for personal data usage, paywall logic and user flow. The ICO will want proof that everything is appropriately documented and regularly reviewed.

7. How Clickio Consent Helps

At Clickio, we anticipated this new world of “Consent or Pay.” Our Built-in Paywall is specifically designed to keep things simple, transparent and compliant:

• Quick Setup: With a single toggle in your Clickio Consent dashboard, you can enable a “consent or subscribe” flow embedded directly into the first layer of your cookie banner.
• Clear User Journey: We ensure each option – “consent to personalised ads,” “pay to avoid tracking” or “leave” – is presented in plain language.
• Fair, Customisable Pricing: You choose the monthly fee for ad-free access. Crucially, this can be adjusted to avoid the pitfalls the ICO highlights around inflated prices.
• No Technical Headaches: Because the paywall is part of our CMP, there’s no need to build a standalone system.
• Recover Ad Revenue: A neatly presented “consent or pay” choice often leads to a higher user-consent rate while also generating subscription income from privacy-minded readers.

8. Conclusion

This updated guidance underlines that “Consent or Pay” remains fully legal as a funding model in 2025, but only if publishers ensure that user consent is valid, informed and truly optional. By offering equivalent content across both ad-supported and ad-free subscriptions, setting a reasonable fee for the privacy-friendly route, and presenting those choices in a fair, user-friendly manner, you’re well on your way to meeting the ICO’s standards.

Remember:

• Power imbalance may or may not apply, depending on your market position and user alternatives.
• Appropriate fee can’t be so high that it stops being a real choice.
• Equivalence requires that your core content be the same, whichever route the user picks.
• Privacy by design is essential for your cookie banner, user settings and ability to withdraw consent.

If you’d like to see how your site could set up a seamless, compliant “Consent or Pay” structure, visit our Clickio Built-in Paywall page. Our mission is to help publishers of all sizes keep ad revenue strong, maintain trust with readers, and remain on the right side of ICO rules.