Supreme Court Blocks Mass iPhone Request Against Google

The UK Supreme Court has dismissed a billions-pound compensation claim from Google for allegedly illegally tracking millions of iPhones.

The judge stated that the applicant had failed to prove that the harm had been caused to individuals by the data collection.

But he didn’t rule out the possibility of future mass lawsuits if the damages could be calculated.

The case will have implications for similar mass lawsuits.

In his view, Lord Leggatt said a key issue is that “the complaint was made to try and take it as a representative action” for many people.

“The plaintiff seeks damages … for each individual member of the class represented without attempting to prove that Google has misused personal data relating to that individual or that the individual has suffered material harm or inconvenience to due to a violation, “it reads.

“Without proof of these things, a compensation claim cannot be successful.”

But he added that the case had a “real chance of success” if pursued by the plaintiff as an individual, rather than as a mass action.

The Google case – brought by Richard Lloyd, former director of consumer rights group Which? – stated that between 2011 and 2012 Google cookies collected data on health, race, ethnicity, sexuality and finance through Apple’s Safari web browser, even when users had chosen a “do not track” privacy setting .

It has sought compensation for 4.4 million affected users. While every single iPhone owner would have received a small fee, the fine for Google could have reached billions.

Lloyd said, “We are bitterly disappointed that the Supreme Court has not done enough to protect the public from Google and other big tech companies breaking the law.

“Although the court once recognized that our action is the only practical way millions of Brits can have access to fair compensation, they have closed the door on this case by stipulating that all concerned must go to court individually.”

He called on the government to take action to make it easier for consumer groups to take action in the event of a data breach.

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, agrees: “There must be a way for people to seek compensation for massive data breaches.”

Currently, the legal fees would mean it would be “completely unreasonable” for individuals to confront the tech giants, he added.

The long-standing case began in 2017 and had gone through the High Court and the Court of Appeals before being taken to the UK Supreme Court.

Had it been successful, it could have opened the door to far more mass action against tech companies for data breaches.

Such actions currently require people to join, which can be a lengthy process.

The Lloyd v Google case attempted to set a precedent for opt-out cases, which means a representative could bring an action on behalf of millions of people.

TikTok is facing a similar case, brought by former Children’s Commissioner Anne Longfield, who claims the video-sharing app used children’s data without informed consent. And Facebook is involved in a lawsuit that claims user data has been mishandled.

Emily Cox, head of media disputes at Stewarts law firm, told the BBC: “This decision ensures that the doors remain firmly closed to collective data privacy action in England and Wales, much to the relief of big tech, but it leaves even consumers without a viable way to redress for violations of their privacy rights “.

Nick McAleenan, partner of JMW Solicitors, said future cases will have to balance “the legal rights and interests of ordinary consumers and those of the large organizations that process all of our personal data.”

And techUK, the UK trade association for technology companies, said that if the ruling had gone otherwise, it “would have opened the door to speculative and vexatious claims against data controllers.”

“We believe it is right that any action should first try to establish whether the damage has been caused,” he added.

Google lost a separate appeal for a € 2.4 billion fine imposed in 2017 for distorting competition between price comparison sites.

The Luxembourg Court dismissed Google’s appeal and upheld the fine.

Shivaun Raff, CEO of Foundem, the lead complainant in that case, welcomed the ruling, but added, “It does not undo the significant damage to consumers and competition caused by more than a decade of insidious search manipulation practices. Google”.