Human rights advocate Tanya O’Carroll has successfully compelled Meta, the social media giant, to refrain from using her data for targeted advertising. This agreement is outlined in a settlement stemming from an individual challenge she filed against Meta’s tracking and profiling practices in 2022.

O’Carroll argued that under U.K. and E.U. data protection laws, individuals have the right to object to the use of their personal data for direct marketing, and that this right entails an unconditional cessation of data processing for such purposes if an objection is raised. She contended that Meta must honor her objection and cease tracking and profiling her for the purpose of serving micro-targeted advertisements.

Meta disputed this claim, asserting that its “personalized ads” do not constitute direct marketing. The case was slated to be heard in the English High Court but has been resolved through the settlement, bringing the legal action to a close.

For O’Carroll, this outcome represents an individual victory, as Meta must now stop utilizing her data for ad targeting when she uses its services. Moreover, she believes the settlement establishes a precedent that will empower others to confidently exercise their right to object to direct marketing, thereby compelling the tech giant to respect their privacy.

In discussing the outcome with TechCrunch, O’Carroll noted that once Meta agreed to her core demand – not to process her data for targeted ads – she had little choice but to accept the settlement. Proceeding with the litigation and potentially facing substantial costs if she lost was a significant deterrent.

O’Carroll described the victory as “bittersweet,” stating, “In many ways, I have achieved what I set out to do – which is to prove that the right to object exists and applies to Meta’s business model, demonstrating that targeted advertising is indeed direct marketing.”

However, she acknowledged that the outcome is not a definitive legal determination, as Meta has not accepted liability and can claim the settlement was merely an agreement with an individual.

Despite the E.U.’s comprehensive legal protections for personal data, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), enforcing these laws against surveillance-based ad models like Meta’s has proven challenging. The U.K.’s domestic data protection framework is still based on the GDPR, but years of regulatory efforts have failed to significantly alter Meta’s core consentless surveillance business model.

Although Meta has incurred numerous GDPR fines, including some of the largest ever imposed on big tech, its surveillance model has persisted. There are signs, however, that enforcement action is gradually eroding this position in Europe, and O’Carroll’s case highlights the potential for privacy pushback.

O’Carroll expressed hope, citing the U.K.’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) intervention in the case, which sided with her. This development may encourage the ICO to support other Meta users who object to their data being processed for targeted ads.

However, O’Carroll predicts that Meta will likely transition to a “pay or consent” model in the U.K., similar to the approach it adopted in the E.U. last year. This model requires users to either consent to tracking and profiling or pay for ad-free access to Meta’s services.

While O’Carroll is unable to disclose the details of the tracking-free access Meta will provide in her case, she confirmed that she will not be required to make any payments to the company.