> That for example (as the article notes) is why Facebook, Google etc are not seen as monopolies because they charge consumers zero.

I can see this point, but also the point that many consumers consider the collection of data about them amounts to a cost, given our current system. (e.g. there's a new, expensive risk for the consumer: suppose that Facebook's systems are hacked and otherwise private data related to security questions, location, income, gender and so on are used to help steal the consumer's identity)

I mean, does economics need to catch up here? Can we really say there's "no cost" to the consumer?