Facebook avoids trial with settlement in landmark privacy case
THIS PRESS STATEMENT IS FROM OUR CLIENT TANYA O’CARROLL RELATING TO HER CASE AGAINST META.
“Tanya O’Carroll claims victory through settlement of her four year court battle against Facebook’s surveillance advertising model.
Facebook’s parent company, Meta, has agreed for the first time to stop targeting advertising to a user based on their personal data, as part of a negotiated settlement in a landmark UK lawsuit. The settlement agreement means the company avoids going to trial just days before the claim was due to be heard in the English High Court.
This settlement concludes a near four year legal dispute in which human rights advocate Tanya O’Carroll has argued that Meta is legally required to allow people to opt out of surveillance-based advertising - a request the company had previously refused.
The first of its kind case filed in 2022 sought to determine whether Facebook’s targeted advertising system fell under UK GDPR’s definition of ‘direct marketing’, therefore allowing individuals the right to object [1]. Meta’s position is that its ad system did not target individuals directly, but rather groups, and therefore did not fall under the same legal requirements.
Tanya O’Carroll 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 UK data protection regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), staged a rare intervention in the litigation and described its position as supportive of Ms. Carroll’s case, signalling the potential this case has to pave the way for the right to object for others. The ICO has set out a summary of the position it took in the case, that “Meta is processing Ms O’Carroll’s personal data for direct marketing purposes and profiling related to those purposes with the consequence that Ms O’Carroll has the absolute right to object” [2].
Ms. O’Carroll is represented by Ravi Naik, a solicitor at AWO. Mr Naik said: “This has been a hard fought case. My client has achieved what she wanted; she objected to the use of her data for marketing. This settlement provides that. The ICO also fundamentally disagreed with Meta’s position, and we are pleased to see that position be made public. Rights must be properly enforced so that everyone, not just the few that have the means to litigate, can take back control of their data.”
The case has renewed scrutiny on Big Tech’s mass data collection practices, which drive Meta’s $134 billion surveillance-based advertising model. Critics argue that unlike traditional advertising - which reaches broad audiences through TV or billboards - surveillance advertising targets individuals using their personal data, not only violating privacy rights but also enabling discrimination and political manipulation. Recently, international NGO Ekō worked with 5000 people across Europe asking Meta to stop processing their data, with formal complaints filed with Data Protection Authorities in Germany, Spain, and Norway. Today, Ekō has also launched a UK campaign urging people to exercise their right to object.
The settlement comes amid growing scrutiny of Meta’s business model. In her new book, Careless People, former Facebook executive Sarah Wynn-Williams exposes how Meta repeatedly prioritised profit over people’s safety. The book reveals how Meta allowed advertisers to target vulnerable teenagers based on emotions such as feeling “worthless,” “anxious,” or “insecure.”
Former UK Attorney General Dominic Grieve commented: “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.”
Tanya O’Carroll concluded: When one company controls how we connect, communicate, and get our news, we’re left with no real choice. Meta acts like a public square but manages to dodge public accountability. It’s time for a fairer internet - where privacy is a right, not a price we’re forced to pay.”
Jim Killock, Executive Director of Open Rights Group, added: “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.”
Notes to the editor:
- Specifically, 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 direct marketing.
- Excerpt from a summary of the ICO’s position “Accordingly, having regard to Meta’s online targeted advertising and based on the written evidence filed by the parties, the Commissioner’s position is that Meta is processing Ms O’Carroll’s personal data for direct marketing purposes and profiling related to those purposes with the consequence that Ms O’Carroll has the absolute right to object to such processing and profiling under Articles 21 (2) and (3) UK GDPR.”
- Mutually agreed statement with Meta: “The parties have mutually agreed to conclude the case. In 2021, I wrote to Meta stating that I wished to exercise my right to object under Article 21(2) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation to any processing of my personal data (including profiling) for direct marketing purposes on Facebook. In agreeing to conclude the case, Meta Platforms, Inc. has agreed that it will not display any direct marketing ads to me on Facebook, will not process my data for direct marketing purposes and will not undertake such processing (including any profiling) to the extent it is related to such direct marketing.”
Download — Summary of Information Commissioner’s Position on O’Carroll v Meta.
Contact:
For media requests please contact: