\n<\/p>\n
A human rights campaigner, Tanya O\u2019Carroll, has succeeded in forcing social media giant Meta not to use her data for targeted advertising. The agreement is contained in a settlement to an individual challenge she lodged against Meta\u2019s tracking and profiling back in 2022<\/a>. <\/p>\n O\u2019Carroll had argued that a legal right to object to the use of personal data for direct marketing that\u2019s contained in U.K. (and E.U.) data protection law, along with an unqualified right that personal data shall no longer be processed for such a purpose if the user objects, meant Meta must respect her objection and stop tracking and profiling her to serve its microtargeted ads. <\/p>\n Meta refuted this \u2014 claiming its \u201cpersonalized ads\u201d are not direct marketing. The case had been due to be heard in the English High Court on Monday, but the settlement ends the legal action.<\/p>\n For O\u2019Carroll it\u2019s an individual win: Meta must stop using her data for ad targeting when she uses its services. She also thinks the settlement sets a precedent that should allow others to confidently exercise the same right to object to direct marketing in order to force the tech giant to respect their privacy.<\/p>\n Speaking to TechCrunch about the outcome, O\u2019Carroll explained she essentially had little choice to agree to the settlement once Meta agreed to what her legal action had been asking for (i.e. not to process her data for targeted ads). Had she proceeded and the litigation failed, she could have faced substantial costs, she told us.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s a bittersweet victory,\u201d she said. \u201cIn lots of ways I\u2019ve achieved what I set out to achieve \u2014 which is to prove that the right to object exists, to prove that it applies exactly to a business model of Meta and many other companies on the internet \u2014 that targeted advertising is, in fact, direct marketing.<\/p>\n \u201cAnd I think I\u2019ve shown<\/em> that that\u2019s the case. But, of course, it\u2019s not determined in law. Mesa has not had to accept liability \u2014 so they can still say they just settled with an individual in this case.\u201d<\/p>\n While the E.U. has long had comprehensive legal protections in place for people\u2019s information, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) \u2014 the law O\u2019Carroll\u2019s legal challenge had hinged on \u2014 which the U.K.\u2019s domestic data protection framework is still based on, enforcing these privacy laws against surveillance-based ad business models such as the one Meta operates has proven to be a painstaking and frustrating endeavor. <\/p>\n Years of regulatory whack-a-mole have played out in relation to multiple GDPR complaints about the company since the regime came into force in May 2018. <\/p>\n And while Meta has racked up quite a number of GDPR fines \u2014 including some of the largest ever privacy fines for tech<\/a> \u2014 its core consentless surveillance business model has proven harder to shift. Although there are signs that enforcement action<\/a> is finally<\/a> chipping away<\/a> at this position in Europe. And O\u2019Carroll\u2019s example underscores that privacy push-back is possible. <\/p>\n \u201cThe thing that gives me hope is that the ICO [U.K.\u2019s Information Commissioner\u2019s Office] did intervene on the case and did very plainly \u2014 and incredibly convincing and persuasively \u2014 side with me,\u201d O\u2019Carroll added, suggesting that other Meta users who also take steps to object to its processing of their data may have a stronger chance of the ICO stepping in to support them if Meta denies their requests now. <\/p>\n That said, she thinks the company will now likely shift to a \u201cpay or consent<\/a>\u201d model in the U.K. \u2014 which is the legal basis it moved to in the EU last year. That requires users to either consent to tracking and profiling or pay Meta to access ad-free versions of its services.<\/p>\n O\u2019Carroll said she is unable to disclose full details of the tracking-free access Meta will be providing in her case but she confirmed that she will not have to pay Meta.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n