In a significant victory for privacy advocates, human rights campaigner Tanya O'Carroll has successfully forced social media giant Meta to stop using her data for targeted advertising. The settlement, reached just before the case was due to be heard in the English High Court, marks a rare individual win against the tech giant's tracking and profiling practices.

O'Carroll had argued that, under UK and EU data protection law, she had the right to object to the use of her personal data for direct marketing. Meta had refuted this, claiming that its "personalized ads" were not direct marketing. However, the settlement indicates that Meta has acknowledged O'Carroll's right to object, and will no longer use her data for targeted advertising.

The case has significant implications for the tech industry, as it sets a potential precedent for others to exercise their right to privacy and object to targeted advertising. O'Carroll believes that the settlement will empower others to take similar action, forcing Meta and other companies to respect their privacy.

Speaking to TechCrunch, O'Carroll described the settlement as a "bittersweet victory." While she has achieved her goal of proving that the right to object to direct marketing exists, the settlement does not determine liability, allowing Meta to claim that it was simply settling with an individual in this case.

The EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has long provided comprehensive legal protections for people's information, but enforcing these laws against surveillance-based ad business models like Meta's has proven challenging. Despite Meta facing numerous GDPR fines, its core consentless surveillance business model has remained largely intact. However, O'Carroll's case suggests that enforcement action is finally starting to chip away at this position in Europe.

O'Carroll expressed hope that the UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) will continue to support individuals who object to Meta's processing of their data. She noted that the ICO had intervened in her case, siding with her and providing a strong foundation for future challenges.

However, O'Carroll predicts that Meta will likely shift to a "pay or consent" model in the UK, similar to the legal basis it moved to in the EU last year. This would require users to either consent to tracking and profiling or pay Meta to access ad-free versions of its services. While O'Carroll will not have to pay Meta for tracking-free access, the details of this arrangement remain unclear.

The settlement serves as a reminder that, despite the challenges of enforcing privacy laws, individuals can still push back against surveillance-based business models and protect their rights. As O'Carroll's case demonstrates, even small victories can have a significant impact on the broader privacy landscape.

In the end, O'Carroll's settlement with Meta marks a crucial step forward in the ongoing battle for privacy and data protection. As the tech industry continues to evolve, it remains to be seen how this case will influence the development of targeted advertising and the protection of user data.