I think most of us have had that moment where we feel it in our bones that targeted advertising has overstepped. You're innocently doom scrolling through your day and social media throws up an advert for something so weirdly specific it shouldn't really think to serve you. I've had it happen multiple times, and it hits like such a violation it can almost feel physical. Kinda like when it started going all in on fertility advertising as I approached my life-saving hysterectomy.
Get absolutely zucked.
While many of us likely feel that targeted advertising goes too far, there doesn't seem to be much we can do about it. Well, it turns out if you've got three years to tie up in a legal battle you can absolutely sue companies like Meta for targeted advertising, and maybe even come out on top. The Times (via TechCrunch) reports that human rights campaigner—and my new personal hero Tanya O’Carroll—has managed to get Meta to settle a lawsuit in the UK by agreeing to no longer track her personal data.
- Google being pushed to sell off Chrome is likely a good thing, but don't cheer on the decision just yet
- Court documents show not only did Meta torrent terabytes of pirated books to train AI models, employees wouldn't stop emailing each other about it: 'Torrenting from a corporate laptop doesn't feel right'
Apparently taking a company to court is far more effective than copy pasting one of those fear driven fake chain messages to your status.
Meta agreed to the settlement just three days before the case was set to go to trial, which stinks heavily of hoping the little guys would get intimidated and give up. It also avoids the chance that the trial would side against Meta, setting legal precedent. This was likely given the U.K.’s Information Commissioner’s Office had staunchly sided with O’Carroll, stating that the direct marketing invoke the privacy laws and that Meta's terms and conditions did not override the individuals ability to opt out.
"It’s a bittersweet victory," says O'Carroll. "In lots of ways I've achieved what I set out to achieve—which is to prove that the right to object exists, to prove that it applies exactly to a business model of Meta and many other companies on the internet—that targeted advertising is, in fact, direct marketing.
"And I think I've shown that that's the case. But, of course, it's not determined in law. Mesa has not had to accept liability—so they can still say they just settled with an individual in this case."
If this had gone to court, a loss for Meta could have been a huge nail in the coffin for the future of these targeted ads in the EU and UK. But a big company like Meta would have likely had delays and appeals causing the case to outlast O'Carroll's lifespan. Especially a company that's no stranger to court proceedings over things like privacy and torrenting data to train AIs to embarrassingly replace its userbase. It's pretty clear why both parties would decide to settle on this case.
Still, a settlement like this is the first we've seen, and if absolutely nothing else forces Meta to admit it can disable this kind of tracking for individual cases. It also shows that the law isn't necessarily on Meta's side, and should bolster the claims of others wanting to opt out of the service. At least in the UK and EU.
The lawsuit hinges on those strong personal protections in place by EU law, which also determined the current UK rules for data protections. But they're pretty clear, and are designed to protect the individual's right to privacy over a company's right to profits, which was the crux of Meta's argument.
The company claimed that it was unreasonable to have free access to the platform, and that these ads were the cost. So, if we do continue to see more backlash against targeted adverts it's likely Meta will yet again talk about charging you for the privilege of arguing with your weird uncle online.
You must confirm your public display name before commenting
Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name.
