Meta Agrees To Stop Tracking Or Profiling U.K. User

Forbes

24-03-2025

Message showing Meta's new subscription plans regarding ads. (Photo by Nikos Pekiaridis/NurPhoto via ... More Getty Images)
Meta has agreed for the first time to stop targeting a Facebook user with ads on the basis of their personal data.
After a four-year dispute, the company has signed a negotiated settlement, just days before a U.K. lawsuit was to be heard in the High Court.
Human rights advocate Tanya O'Carroll filed the case in 2022, claiming that Facebook's targeted advertising system fell under UK GDPR's definition of 'direct marketing'. This meant that individuals had the right to object, and could opt out of surveillance-based advertising—a request the company had previously refused.
Meta, however, argued that its ad system didn't target individuals directly, but rather groups, and that it therefore didn't fall under the same legal requirements.
O'Carroll first became concerned about targeted advertising after discovering in 2017 that she was pregnant - something that Meta clearly discovered too, as she started receiving ads about pregnancy and motherhood. At that stage, she said, she hadn't even told all her family and friends.
"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," she said.
'Finally, this shows that we all have a right to access social media without paying with invasive levels of personal data."
Unusually, the UK's data regulator, the Information Commissioner's Office, intervened in the case, saying it supported Carroll's case.
"People have the right to object to their personal information being used for direct marketing, and we have been clear that online targeted advertising should be considered as direct marketing," said a spokesperson.
'Organizations 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."
Meta has now agreed that it won't display any direct marketing ads to Carroll on Facebook, process her data for direct marketing purposes or carry out profiling for direct marketing to her.
And the case could set a precedent.
"Big Tech companies should not be above the law," commented former UK attorney general Dominic Grieve. "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."
In the EU, Meta has moved to a 'pay-or-consent' model, requiring users to either consent to tracking and profiling or pay Meta to access ad-free versions of its services.
However, 5,000 people across Europe have recently made requests to Meta, asking the company to stop processing their data. Formal complaints have been filed with the data protection authorities in Germany, Spain, and Norway.
Meta says it still fundamentally disagrees with O'Carroll's claims, saying that no business should have to give away its services for free.
"We take our UK GDPR obligations seriously and provide robust settings and tools for users to control their data and advertising preferences," said a spokesperson.
"Facebook and Instagram cost a significant amount of money to build and maintain, and these services are free for British consumers because of personalized advertising."
The spokesperson added that the company is now looking at giving U.K. users a similar pay-or-consent model to those in the EU.