> It is legal[1] to require users to agree to data collection or pay a subscription. Some news sites have already begun to implement this scheme.

From your link, almost at the top: "The cookie wall is a mechanism where the user has only one option to access the website: accept the processing of the cookies. The cookie wall is prohibited.". So no, requiring users to agree to data collection, per your article, is prohibited.

You have to read the whole article though, not just stop at the first paragraph.

The article makes a distinction between cookie wall (accept or no access) and paywall[1] (accept or pay). The former is prohibited, the latter has been okay'd by several national DPAs.

> The Austrian, French and Danish DPAs have already indicated that the paywall system is a valid solution as long as the subscription to the site has a modest and fair cost so that it does not constrain the user’s free choice.

> The Spanish DPA indirectly shared its position implying that cookie walls can be used as long as the user has been clearly informed of the two available options for accessing the service: 1. accepting the use of cookies; or 2. another alternative, “not necessarily free of charge“, that doesn’t require giving consent to cookies.

[1] Not to be confused with the "hard" paywall (pay or no access) we see on some publications. They've just called it like that for lack of a better term.

That is a monetization service. A short internet search quickly reveals that data-or-paywall is a bad idea at best, and explicitly illegal per multiple nations. It only requires one user from one of those states to file a report.