Meta (formerly known as Facebook) is the parent company of social media products such as Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. In March 2025, Tanya O’Carroll’s four-year legal battle with Meta came to an end as a settlement was reached between the two parties. The settlement agreement means that Meta must stop targeting adverts to a UK user based on their personal data, for the first time.
Following the birth of her child, O’Carroll noticed an influx of baby-related adverts on her Facebook page. She later discovered that Meta had used her personal data to assign her to over 700 categories, because of her online activity. She argued that this type of profiling amounted to invasive surveillance and infringed her rights over her personal data, protected within the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Data Protection Act (DPA 2018).
Tanya O’Carroll has argued that Facebook’s targeted advertising system (which allows them to provide ‘personalised ads’ relevant to an individual) falls under the definition of “direct marketing”. As a result of this, under the DPA 2018, she has a right to object and can therefore ‘opt out’ of Facebook’s surveillance advertising practices.
It appears that her attempt to “turn off all the creepy, invasive, targeted ads” has been somewhat successful, or at least an individual win. This is evidenced by the Information Commissioner’s Office’s clear support to Ms O’Carroll. The UK’s data watchdog sided with her in her claim and unequivocally confirmed that targeted advertising is a form of direct marketing. It is now believed that others who want to exercise this right will have support from the UK regulator.
However, Ms O’Carroll has claimed the settlement as a “bittersweet victory”.Although she was unable to get damages or continue in her action due to high legal costs, she was able to prevent Meta from using her data for the purposes detailed above whilst she uses their services.Despite this individual success and hopes to open a new gateway, it seems increasingly likely that Meta, and similar online platforms will switch to a “pay or consent model” as it has in Europe already. This system requires users to either consent to profiling or to pay Meta for an ad-free version of its services.
As a result of the above, Ms O’Carroll’s attempts seem to have encouraged Meta to think twice about their invasive policies and have provided a potential route for users to stop targeted ads, at least for the time being. Her settlement can be regarded as an individual win, but there may not be the widespread impact that she hopes it would have. Meta has been very keen to point out that the out-of-court settlement does not constitute a binding precedent and has already considered adapting its service model.
At Glaisyers, we look forward to seeing how these areas of law continue to develop in the
ever-changing digital environment. We offer legal support to individuals and businesses within creative industries to navigate these complex areas. If you need any legal advice, support or guidance with regards to your data, privacy, intellectual property or other related matters, please contact our Creative, Digital and Marketing legal team.
