Meta vs Tanya O’Carroll: The creepy paradox of perfect targeting

Opinion

Following the recent ruling on Meta’s privacy intrusion, Thinkbox’s new CSO explores how advertising can deliver relevance without the stalker vibes.

You’d expect that Tanya O’Carroll’s landmark settlement with Meta — forcing the platform to stop targeting her with ads using personal data — would be a moment of collective soul-searching and public debate for an industry that is ever more focused on addressability and data targeting.

But no.

So far, it seems to have gone almost unnoticed (or at the very least uncommented upon).

There’s an interesting tension at the heart of the case: O’Carroll (pictured, top) isn’t a Facebook refusenik; she’s a loyal user who cherished the platform’s ability to connect her to friends, family and life memories.

What she recoiled from was the advertising. Specifically, pregnancy-related ads that surfaced before she’d even told loved ones her news.

To marketers, this might be targeting at its most elegant — a predictive algorithm identifying a life-stage shift with surgical precision. To O’Carroll, it felt “predatory”.

The ‘creepification’ of over-targeting

The ad industry has long built much of its growth on the line that consumers “prefer personalised ads”. But O’Carroll’s case exposes that line for its oversimplification.

Yes, relevance matters — but so do context, control and the subtlety of the hand that serves it. When targeting edges into surveillance — inferring intimate life events before they’re public — it doesn’t feel like convenience. It feels like violation.

This isn’t about abandoning personalisation. It’s about recognising that “creepy” isn’t a technical failure, it’s a human reaction to being reduced to a data point. And once that trust snaps, even devotees like O’Carroll will reach for the legal crowbar.

So how do we deliver relevance without the stalker vibes? Part of the answer lies in where we target, not just how.

Take broadcaster VOD (BVOD) and subscription VOD (SVOD). Platforms like ITVX, Sky AdSmart, Channel 4’s advanced data suite or the growing ad tier solutions from Netflix, Amazon Prime Video or Disney+ offer the same audience precision as social media — contextual cues, viewing habits, device signals — but without triggering that “we’re watching you” sensation.

Why? Because viewers don’t feel the strings being pulled.

Acacia Avenue’s research for Thinkbox a couple of years ago nailed this: BVOD/SVOD inherit linear TV’s “trusted living room” aura. Ads here feel serendipitous, not suspicious — a baby product ad during a family drama, say, rather than a pregnancy test promo stalking your Instagram Stories.

The screen is communal, the targeting opaque and the value exchange (“free” premium content for ads) feels fair.

Crucially, viewers assume these ads have been vetted (as indeed they have been, by actual humans) — a psychological loophole the industry can ethically exploit.

Creative, frequency and the ‘uncanny valley’ of ads

Of course, channel strategy alone isn’t a cure-all. Softer creative messaging might have helped allay some of her concerns. Less invasive messaging that prioritises empathetic storytelling over literal product pushes should be non-negotiable.

But the O’Carroll case isn’t just a lesson in restraint. It’s a rallying cry to lean in to environments where targeting doesn’t feel like targeting. Yes, BVOD and SVOD; but also digital OOH, digital audio… these channels let brands leverage data without waving it in users’ faces.

The best targeting, after all, is the kind audiences don’t notice.

O’Carroll’s settlement is unlikely to be a gateway to further legal challenges and it isn’t a death knell for personalised ads. But it is a referendum on how we execute them. The industry’s future lies in channels and strategies that deliver relevance without the residue of surveillance — because “creepification” isn’t just a legal risk. It’s a brand killer.

As for BVOD, SVOD and the other environments that don’t give people the creeps? Think of them as the ideal solution for targeting: all the precision, none of the panic.

Elliott Millard is chief strategy officer at Thinkbox