Purpose Media users daily exchange personal data for “free” personalised media. Is this a fair trade, or user “exploitation”? Do personalisation benefits outweigh privacy risks? Design/methodology/approach This study surveyed experts in three consecutive online rounds (e-Delphi). The authors explored personal data processing value for media, personalisation relevance, benefits and risks for users. The authors scrutinised the value-exchange between media and users and determined whether media communicate transparently, or use “dark patterns” to obtain more personal data. Findings Communication to users must be clear, correct and concise (prevent user deception). Experts disagree on “payment” with personal data for “free” personalised media. This study discerned obstacles and solutions to substantially balance the interests of media and users (fair value exchange). Personal data processing must be transparent, profitable to media and users. Media can agree “sector-wide” on personalisation transparency. Fair, secure and transparent information disclosure to media is possible through shared responsibility and effort. Originality/value This study’s innovative contribution is threefold: Firstly, focus on professional stakeholders’ opinion in the value network. Secondly, recommendations to clearly communicate personalised media value, benefits and risks to users. This allows media to create codes of conduct that increase user trust. Thirdly, expanding literature explaining how media realise personal data value, deal with stakeholder interests and position themselves in the data processing debate. This research improves understanding of personal data value, processing benefits and potential risks in a regional context and European regulatory framework.

European General Data Protection Regulation requires organisations to request the data subject’s consent for personal data processing. Data controllers must be able to demonstrate valid consent was obtained (‘transparency’). Media often struggle to meet GDPR requirements in practice. We identified several issues with existing consent procedures amongst which a need for trustworthy approaches to record and track consent. In this article, we evaluate a specific transparency initiative: a Personal Data Receipt (PDR) for news personalisation. We investigated how European media users and media professionals evaluated the PDR. We conducted qualitative surveys and interviews to explore and describe individuals’ viewpoints on/responses to the PDR. The main strengths highlighted in this study are: GDPR compliance and improved data processing transparency which leads to more control and user trust. PDR weaknesses are mainly related to users not reading the receipt, lack/overload of information, and design issues. Based on our findings, we identified missing elements and formulated recommendations for PDR improvement to optimise consent strategies. By examining how individuals responded to this specific transparency tool, and rhetorical tactics connected to it (placation, diversion, jargon, and misnaming), our study provides informed suggestions for ways out of digital resignation (Draper & Turow, 2019).