A human rights campaigner, Tanya O’Carroll, has succeeded in force social media gigantic meta not to use its data for targeted advertisements. The agreement is included in a settlement for an individual challenge that it submitted in 2022 against following and profiling Meta.
O’Carroll had argued that a legal right to object to the use of personal data for direct marketing that is included in the British legislation in the UK (and the EU), together with an unqualified right that personal data is no longer processed for such a goal if the user objects, referred to as meta, must respect and stop following its microtargeties.
Meta refuted this – claim that the “personalized advertisements” are not direct marketing. The case would be heard in the Engelshechtshof, England on Monday, but the settlement ends the legal action.
For O’Carroll it is an individual victory: Meta must stop using her data for advertising when they use his services. She also thinks that the settlement is a precedent that others should enable with confidence to exercise the same right to object to direct marketing to force the technology giant to respect their privacy.
Speaking with Techcrunch about the result, O’Carroll explained that she essentially had little choice to agree to the scheme as soon as Meta corresponded to what her legal steps had asked (ie her data do not process for targeted advertisements). If she had continued and the lawsuit had failed, she would have had to deal with considerable costs, she told us.
“It’s a bittersweet victory,” she said. “In many ways I have achieved what I wanted to achieve – namely to prove that the right to object exists, to prove that it exactly applies to a Meta business model and many other companies on the internet – that targeted advertisements is in fact direct marketing.
And I think I have that shown That’s the case. But of course it is not determined in the law. Mesa did not have to accept any liability – so that they can still say that they have settled with a person in this case. “
Although the EU has long had extensive legal protection for the information from people, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)-Was the legal challenge of the O’Carroll Act graduated-from the domestic framework for domestic data protection is still based on maintaining these privacy laws with a sores of Surveillance models.
Years of Legal Whack-A-Mole have taken place with regard to several AVG complaints about the company since the regime was put into operation in May 2018.
And although Meta has collected a good number of AVG fines – including some of the largest privacy fines ever for technology – it is more difficult to shift the cero -free surveillance model. Although there are signs that enforcement action is finally leaving this position in Europe. And the example of O’Carroll underlines that the Push-Back-Terug-Back of privacy is possible.
“The thing that gives me hope is that the ICO [U.K.’s Information Commissioner’s Office] Has intervened in Inge’s and did very clearly – and incredibly convincing and convincing – the side of me, “O’Carroll added, which suggests that other Meta users who also take steps to object to the processing of their data, have a stronger chance of stepping to support them if meta now refuses their requests.
That said, she thinks that the company will now probably shift to a “wage or permission” model in the UK – which is the legal basis that it moved in the EU last year. This requires users to give permission for following and profiling or profiling or paying meta to gain access to advertising -free versions of the services.
O’Carroll said that she is unable to provide the full details of the tracking-free access meta in her case, but she confirmed that she does not have to pay meta.