Surprisingly, not everybody likes a free lunch. Some privacy advocates look at the Internet's rich trove of free services and information and see a problem in need of solving. As lawmakers in Sacramento and Washington debate privacy legislation, we can't allow a vocal minority of privacy advocates to break the business model that has made the Internet so successful.

Last week, Congressman Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., introduced a consumer privacy bill that thoughtfully addresses privacy questions without destroying the interest-based advertising model that supports free Internet content and services. Also last week, Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz., proposed a far-reaching consumer privacy law that would let the FTC make new rules governing the collection and use of consumer information for marketing purposes.

But some privacy advocates are urging their friends in Congress and in statehouses around the country to go much, much further. In place of the Stearns and Kerry-McCain proposals to let users "opt out" of data collection, they want American privacy legislation based on much stricter European laws – laws that have already proved extremely harmful to the model that supports free Internet content.

Next week, Sacramento becomes ground zero in this high-stakes fight for the Internet's future.

State Sen. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, recently introduced a bill that would impose massive new restrictions on websites, requiring them to obtain permission before even collecting non-personal data, such as what kind of Web browser a visitor may be using. The bill, set for a hearing Tuesday, also forbids sharing with advertisers any information, even with user consent.

These are restrictions that would change Internet content as we know it, dramatically reducing the amount of free and low-cost information and services available to users in California and across the country.

Virtually all of the free Internet content and services we enjoy are funded by ads, many of which are matched to interests of the user. Breaking that funding model will mean less free content, as websites lose out on essential advertising dollars.

In the past, privacy advocates have accused e-commerce advocates of baseless fear-mongering when we point out the clear connection between Internet advertising and free content. But thanks to Europe's dramatic overreaching in the name of privacy protection, we now have a distressing case study of what happens when the advertising funding model is stifled by regulation.

An MIT-University of Toronto study looked at what happened when European countries required opt-in to restrict interest tracking for online advertising. The study compared the purchase intentions of more than 3 million individuals across five European Union and five non-EU countries over the eight years after European nations began implementing opt-in requirements to follow the EU Privacy Directive. The MIT-Toronto study found that after the EU adopted an opt-in model for interest-based advertising, as some in the privacy community advocate, "advertising effectiveness decreased on average by around 65 percent in Europe relative to the rest of the world."

The study also found that subtle, low-key ads were most hurt by the EU opt-in approach. So to make up for the lack of relevance to the user, ads will have to become more abundant, more aggressive and more intrusive to the user experience.

Building off the MIT-Toronto findings, NetChoice forecast the effect EU-style opt-in legislation would have on American websites: $80 billion less in ad spending over five years.

The so-called "Do Not Track" bill proposed earlier this year by Rep. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, would have sweeping impact on the availability of free Internet content and services. And Lowenthal's measure could inadvertently set a draconian standard for the entire country.

If Internet advertising takes a multibillion-dollar hit as a result of legislation, three things will begin to happen almost immediately. First, websites will show more and larger ads to make up for lost revenue from less-targeted ads. Next, Internet content providers will have less to spend on new services and content, and finally, more websites will erect pay walls to fund content that is free today.

Perhaps users are comfortable with these ripple effects. Maybe we're all ready to say goodbye to an era of ever-evolving free content and services. But I suspect that's not the case.

One way or another, the Internet lunch isn't free. The only question is who pays for it, advertisers or you?

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Steve DelBianco is the executive director of NetChoice, a leading national coalition of e-commerce companies.

• Read more articles by Steve DelBianco