The owner of Facebook and Instagram has agreed to stop targeting a UK citizen with personalised adverts after agreeing a settlement in a landmark privacy case that could set a precedent for millions of social media users.
Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta also said it was considering charging UK users for an advert-free version of its platforms after the legal agreement that avoided a trial in the high court in London.
Tanya O’Carroll, a human rights campaigner, launched a lawsuit against the $1.5tn (£1.2tn) company in 2022, alleging it had breached UK data laws by failing to respect her right to demand Facebook stop collecting and processing her data in order to target her with adverts. Her stance was supported by the UK’s data watchdog, indicating that the case will set a precedent for millions of UK users of online platforms.
O’Carroll said the support of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) meant “the writing is on the wall” for Meta and its advertising-based business model.
“This is an individual settlement, but I believe its ramifications extend far beyond me,” said O’Carroll. “The key factor is the UK data protection authority, which backed my case and has publicly stated that it will support people in the UK who wish to exercise their right to object to online targeted ads. I think that beyond the life of this case, the writing is on the wall for Meta – people want a choice on surveillance ads, and the right to object gives them exactly that.”
On Friday, both sides settled the lawsuit, with O’Carroll claiming a “victory” after Meta committed to stop using her personal data to target her with bespoke adverts. O’Carroll’s argument was supported by the ICO, which said “people have the right to object to their personal information being used for direct marketing”.
The ICO added that users should have an “opt out” from their data being used to create targeted ads. It said: “Organisations must respect people’s choices about how their data is used. This means giving users a clear way to opt out of their data being used in this way.”
O’Carroll said the ICO’s verdict, which the regulator made clear in a submission to the high court, could pave the way for more lawsuits on a similar basis.
“This settlement represents not just a victory for me, but for everyone who values their fundamental right to privacy,” said O’Carroll. “None of us signed up to be trapped into decades of surveillance advertising, held hostage by the threat of losing the ability to connect with our loved ones online.”
Meta said it “fundamentally” disagreed with O’Carroll’s claims and took its obligations under the UK’s privacy law, GDPR, seriously. It added that it was weighing the option of introducing a subscription service in the UK, whereby users would pay a fee for an ad-free service. Advertising accounts for approximately 98% of Meta’s revenue.
“We are exploring the option of offering people based in the UK a subscription and will share further information in due course,” said Meta.
Last year the ICO said it was looking at how UK data protection law would apply to an ad-free subscription service.
Commenting on the case, the former UK attorney general Dominic Grieve said: “Big tech companies should not be above the law. If companies like Meta want to operate in the UK, they should be directed to follow the same legal standards as everyone else – respecting people’s privacy rights, not exploiting them at any cost.”
Meta already offers a no-ads paid-for service in the EU after a 2023 ruling by the European court of justice, the highest in the EU.
