Do consumers value data privacy? How much? In a survey of 2,416 Americans, we find that the median consumer is willing to pay just $5 per month to maintain data privacy (along specified dimensions), but would demand $80 to allow access to personal data. This is a “superendowment effect,” much higher than the 1:2 ratio often found between willingness to pay and willingness to accept. In addition, people demand significantly more money to allow access to personal data when primed that such data includes health-related data than when primed that such data includes demographic data. We analyze reasons for these disparities and offer some notations on their implications for theory and practice. A general theme is that because of a lack of information and behavioural biases, both willingness to pay and willingness to accept measures are highly unreliable guides to the welfare effects of retaining or giving up data privacy. Gertrude Stein’s comment about Oakland, California may hold for consumer valuations of data privacy: “There is no there there.” For guidance, policymakers should give little or no attention to either of those conventional measures of economic value, at least when steps are not taken to overcome deficits in information and behavioural biases.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
One participant stated a willingness to pay to prevent access to personal data at $-10, perhaps because he or she expected adverse effects if their personal data were no longer collected by social networking and data brokerage companies. This was also re-assigned a value of zero.
It is also important to note that if and to the extent that some social media providers – including Facebook – have monopoly power, they exercise it not by charging users (access is free), but by extracting more data than they would in a competitive market. That issue deserves far more attention.
Acquisti, A., John, L. K., & Loewenstein, G. (2013). What is privacy worth? The Journal of Legal Studies, 42(2), 249–274.
Acquisti, A., Taylor, C., & Wagman, L. (2016). The economics of privacy. Journal of Economic Literature, 54(2), 442–492.
Allcott, H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2015). Regulating internalities. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(3), 698–705.
Allcott, H., Braghieri, L., Eichmeyer, S., & Gentzkow, M. (2018). The welfare effects of social media. SSRN Electronic Journal. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3308640. Accessed 18 April 2019.
Bewley, T. F. (1999). Why wages don’t fall during a recession. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cummings, R. G., Brookshire, D. S., Schulze, W. D., Bishop, R. C., & Arrow, K. J. (1986). Valuing environmental goods: An assessment of the contingent valuation method. Totowa, N.J: Rowman & Allanheld.
Frederick, S., Novemsky, N., Wang, J., Dhar, R., & Nowlis, S. (2009). Opportunity cost neglect. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(4), 553–561.
Huberman, B. A., Adar, E., & Fine, L. R. (2005). Valuating privacy. IEEE Security and Privacy Magazine, 3(5), 22–25.
Huck, S., Kirchsteiger, G., & Oechssler, J. (2005). Learning to like what you have – explaining the endowment effect. The Economic Journal, 115(505), 689–702.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase Theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325–1348.
Martin, K. (2015). Privacy notices as tabula rasa: An empirical investigation into how complying with a privacy notice is related to meeting privacy expectations online. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 34(2), 210–227.
Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54(2), 93–105.
Sharot, T. (2012). The optimism bias: A tour of the irrationally positive brain. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Spiekermann, S., Grossklags, J., & Berendt, B. (2001). E-privacy in 2nd generation E-commerce: Privacy preferences versus actual behavior. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM conference on Electronic Commerce - EC ’01 (pp. 38–47). Presented at the the 3rd ACM conference, Tampa, FL: ACM Press.
Stein, G. (1937). Everybody’s autobiography. New York: Random House.
Stigler, G. J. (1980). An introduction to privacy in economics and politics. The Journal of Legal Studies, 9(4), 623–644.
Sunstein, C. R. (2002). Probability neglect: Emotions, worst cases, and law. The Yale Law Journal, 112(1), 61.
Sunstein, C. R. (2019). Valuing Facebook. Behavioural Public Policy, 1–12. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.34 Accessed 18 April 2019.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232.
Wang, Y., & Sloan, F. A. (2018). Present bias and health. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 57(2), 177–198.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Winegar, A.G., Sunstein, C.R. How Much Is Data Privacy Worth? A Preliminary Investigation. J Consum Policy 42, 425–440 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-019-09419-y
- Data privacy
- Endowment effect
- Willingness to pay
- Willingness to accept
- Behavioural biases