A human rights activist, Tanya O’Carroll, managed to force the Meta social media giant not to use her data for targeted advertising. The agreement is contained in an individual challenge which it has filed against the monitoring and profiling of Meta Back in 2022.
O’Carroll had argued that a legal right to oppose the use of personal data for direct marketing contained in the data protection law of the United Kingdom (and the EU), as well as an unskilled right that personal data will no longer be processed for such a purpose if user objects, meant that META must respect its objection and stop the follow-up and profiling to serve its Advantage.
Meta refuted this – saying that her “personalized ads” are not direct marketing. The case was to be heard on Monday before the English High Court, but the regulations put an end to legal action.
For O’Carroll, it is an individual victory: Meta must stop using its data for targeting ads when it uses its services. She also thinks that the regulations establish a precedent which should allow others to practice with confidence the same right to oppose direct marketing in order to force the technology giant to respect their privacy.
Addressing Techcrunch on the result, O’Carroll explained that it had essentially little choice to accept the regulations once Meta accepted what her legal action had asked (that is to say, not processing her data for targeted announcements). If it had proceeded and the dispute had failed, it could have faced substantial costs, she told us.
“It’s a bittersweet victory,” she said. “Many ways, I realized what I decided to achieve – which is to prove that the right to object exists, to prove that it applies exactly to a meta business model and many other companies on the Internet – that targeted advertising is, in fact, direct marketing.
“And I think I have noted This is the case. But, of course, it is not determined in law. Mesa did not have to accept responsibility – they can therefore still say that they settled with an individual in this case. »»
Although the EU has long set up complete legal protections for people’s information, such as General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – the legal challenge of the UK data protection law, the application of these confidentiality laws against advertising models for monitoring surveillance such as that of META operations has proven a pause and a frustrated fact.
Years of regulatory regulation have played compared to several complaints from the RGPD concerning the company since the entry into force of the regime in May 2018.
And while Meta has accumulated a number of RGPD fines – including Some of the most important confidentiality fines for technology – Its commercial surveillance model without basic consent has proven more difficult to move. Although there are signs that implementation action East Finally blunt to this position in Europe. And the example of O’Carroll stresses that the boost to confidentiality is possible.
“What gives me hope is that ICO [U.K.’s Information Commissioner’s Office] I intervened on the case and did very clearly – and incredibly convincing and convincing – with me, “added O’Carroll, suggesting that other Meta users who also take measures to oppose their processing of their data may have a stronger chance than the ICO intervenes to support them if Meta refuses their requests now.
That said, she thinks that the company will now go to a “pay or consent»Model in the United Kingdom – which is the legal basis where it moved to the EU last year. This obliges users to consent to monitoring and profiling or meta meta to access the versions without advertising its services.
O’Carroll said that she was unable to disclose all the details of access without follow -up, Meta would provide in her case, but she confirmed that she would not have to pay meta.
