Meta agrees to stop surveillance in landmark case

Telegraph

22-03-2025

Meta has agreed to stop surveillance of people's data to bombard them with adverts in a landmark case.
The company, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, agreed to stop targeting advertising to a campaigner as part of a negotiated settlement after she took them to court for abusing her legal rights.
The settlement could set a precedent for millions of users of social media and search engines to prevent tech firms from hoovering up their data in order to target them with personalised adverts and marketing material.
Tanya O'Carroll, a senior fellow at Foxglove legal, a non-profit company campaigning for fair treatment online, said: 'This settlement represents not just a victory for me, but for everyone who values their fundamental right to privacy.
'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. Finally, this shows that we all have a right to access social media without paying with invasive levels of personal data.'
The case, the first of its kind, was settled just days before it was due in court. Ms O'Carroll asserted that Meta breached Article 21(2) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which provides individuals with an unqualified right to object to the processing of their data for targeted advertising.
Meta had argued its advertising system did not target individuals directly, but rather groups, and therefore did not fall under the same legal requirements.
However, in a mutually agreed statement, Meta said it would not display any direct marketing ads to Ms O'Carroll on Facebook, would not process her data for direct marketing purposes and would not 'undertake such processing (including any profiling) to the extent it is related to such direct marketing'.
'Big Tech companies should not be above the law'
The Information Commissioner, the UK's data watchdog, staged a rare intervention in the litigation and described its position as supportive of Ms Carroll's case, signalling that it had the potential to pave the way for the right to object for others.
It said Ms O'Carroll had an 'absolute right' to object to her data being used for direct marketing and profiling.
A report by the Competition and Markets Authority on online platforms and digital advertising found that Facebook 'uses default settings to nudge people into using their services and giving up their data'.
This included the requirement to 'accept personalised advertising as a condition for using the service'.
It also pointed out this was not what Facebook users really wanted as only 13 per cent said they were happy to share their data in return for relevant ads.
The settlement concluded a near four-year legal dispute in which human rights advocate Ms O'Carroll argued that Meta is legally required to allow people to opt out of surveillance-based advertising – a request the company had previously refused.
Dominic Grieve, former UK attorney general, 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.'
Jim Killock, executive director of Open Rights Group, said: 'We should not have to trade away our privacy to access essential online services. The real solution is to break down the monopoly walled gardens. We need a vibrant social media ecosystem where people can freely choose platforms that respect their privacy and align with their values.'