Facebook has agreed to halt targeted advertising for a UK user after she sued its parent company, Meta.
Tanya O’Carroll, a 37-year-old London-based tech policy and human rights professional, believes this case sets a precedent for others seeking to prevent the social media giant from using their personal data for ad targeting.
The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office has classified online targeted ads as a form of direct marketing.
In response, Meta stated that it offers “robust settings and tools” to help users manage their data and advertising preferences.
#1Facebook Knew Before Her Friends: The Alarming Reach of Targeted Ads
Ms. O’Carroll, who joined Facebook nearly 20 years ago, sued Meta in 2022, demanding that the company stop using her personal data to flood her feed with targeted ads based on inferred interests.
"I knew this kind of predatory, invasive advertising was something we all have a legal right to object to," she told BBC Radio 4’s Today program. "We shouldn’t have to accept unfair terms that force us to consent to invasive data tracking and surveillance."
Her concerns deepened in 2017 when she became pregnant and noticed a dramatic shift in the ads Facebook showed her.
"Within weeks, my feed was full of baby photos, pregnancy products, and motherhood-related ads," she said. "It was unnerving—before I had even shared the news with my loved ones, Facebook had already figured it out."
#2A Legal Victory Against Targeted Ads
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) governs how organizations handle personal data.
Ms. O’Carroll’s lawsuit argued that Facebook’s targeted advertising falls under the UK’s definition of direct marketing, granting individuals the right to object.
Meta countered that its ads target groups of at least 100 people, not individuals, and therefore do not qualify as direct marketing. However, the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) disagreed.
"Organizations must respect people’s choices about how their data is used," an ICO spokesperson stated. "This means providing users with a clear way to opt out."
Following the lawsuit, Meta agreed to stop using Ms. O’Carroll’s personal data for direct marketing. "In non-legal terms, this means I’ve essentially been able to turn off all the creepy, invasive, targeted ads on Facebook," she said.
Despite her concerns about data privacy, Ms. O’Carroll has no plans to leave Facebook, calling it a platform "filled with connections, family, friends, and entire chapters of my life."
#3A Precedent for Privacy: What Ms. O'Carroll’s Case Means for Others
Ms. O’Carroll hopes her legal victory will pave the way for others who want to stop Facebook from serving them targeted ads.
"If others wish to exercise their rights, I believe they now have a gateway, knowing that the UK regulator will support them," she said.
Meta, however, dismissed her claims, stating, "No business can be mandated to give away its services for free."
A company spokesperson argued that Facebook and Instagram require significant resources to maintain and remain free for users because of personalized advertising. "Our services support British jobs and economic growth by connecting businesses with potential buyers while ensuring universal access to online platforms, regardless of income," they added. "We will continue to defend this model while upholding user choice and privacy."
Meta has already introduced an ad-free subscription option across most of Europe. The company is now "exploring the option" of bringing a similar service to UK users and plans to share more details in the future.
Reactions
Already reacted for this post.
