Who? Ravi Naik, legal director at AWO, London.

Why is he in the news? Facebook’s parent company, Meta, agreed to stop targeting advertising to the firm’s client, Tanya O’Carroll, as part of a negotiated settlement in a landmark privacy lawsuit.

Thoughts on the case: ‘This is the culmination of a long-running and hard-fought case, on quite technical issues in the GDPR. The crux is the scope of a right in the GDPR that provides for an individual to object to the use of data about their behaviour to target adverts at them.   

‘The case settled on the eve of the trial. That worked out well for our client, as she effectively got everything she claimed for. That settlement, however, means there is no legal precedent. Meta maintains its position that its ad targeting does not fall within the right to object in the GDPR. That might be thought to limit the wider significance of the settlement reached, yet the intervention of the regulator for data protection, who came out strongly in support of our client’s claim, may have a bigger impact.

‘Such interventions are quite rare and the terms of the intervention make it significant. If another person were to exercise their right to object and Meta refused to action it, then that individual could complain to the ICO. That is free and, given what the ICO has said publicly, it’s reasonable to assume it would uphold such a complaint.’

A Meta spokesperson said: ‘We fundamentally disagree with the claims made by Ms O’Carroll – no business can be mandated to give away its services for free… We take our UK GDPR obligations seriously and provide robust settings and tools for users to control their data and advertising preferences. Facebook and Instagram cost a significant amount of money to build and maintain, and these services are free for British consumers because of personalised advertising.’

Dealing with the media: ‘There is significant media interest in this case because it concerns an issue which affects almost everyone: how much tech companies know about you, what they do with that information and what power it gives them. We were fortunate to be representing a brilliant and articulate campaigner, Tanya O’Carroll, who has helped to bring media attention to the settlement and cut through the jargon.’

Career high: ‘Being able to start my own firm, which at the time was a major risk as the issues we work on were not well known then. Now that the issues of technological impact on society are known, I feel lucky to have built a team who are knowledgeable, passionate, dedicated and care deeply about the issues.’

Career low: ‘Having to inform individuals who otherwise have a very good case that they face potential costs risks that could ruin them is incredibly difficult.’

Topics