Bloomberg Law: Privacy & Data Security brings you single-source access to the expertise of Bloomberg Law’s privacy and data security editorial team, contributing practitioners,...
July 31 — In a case with significant implications for how damages are considered in international privacy litigation, The U.K. Supreme Court July 28 granted Google Inc. permission to appeal part of lower court ruling that concluded that U.K. users of the Safari Internet browser would be able to proceed with privacy claims against the search engine.
The primary concern of companies doing business in the U.K. is that they may be forced to defend claims based not on a showing of actual damages but where a group of plaintiffs allege emotional distress damages, according to a July 30 blog post by Philippe Bradley-Schmieg, an attorney at Covington & Burling LLP in London.
According to Nick Graham, a partner at Dentons in London, the ruling against Google in the U.K. appeals court below “opened the door to the risk of mass claims for data privacy breaches.”
In a July 30 blog post, he said that it isn't hard to imagine that after a large data breach a company might face a million plaintiffs claiming a small sum for associated distress. That “adds up to a big liability,” Graham said.
Google has lost two previous attempts to avoid facing cookies tracing claims in the U.K., including a 2014 ruling by the England and Wales High Court of Justice that Google should face cookies tracking claims in the U.K., and not in Mountain View, Calif, as the search engine had argued.
The Court of Appeal of England and Wales upheld that decision in March. The court said Google's appeal should be dismissed because the claims made by a group of users of Apple Inc.'s Safari browser against Google raised “serious issues which merit a trial”.
But the supreme court said in a July 28 statement that it had accepted two of the three grounds that Google gave for seeking an appeal.
“We are pleased that the Supreme Court has agreed to consider key issues in this complex case,” a Google spokeswoman told Bloomberg BNA July 28.
Of the three grounds Google gave for seeking an appeal, the supreme court accepted two, including whether the court of appeal was “right to hold that section 13(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998 was incompatible with Article 23 of the Directive.”
In its March ruling, the court of appeal found “it was not possible to interpret section 13 (2) of the Data Protection Act 1998”—which deals with claims for compensation for individuals who face privacy violations—“in a way that was compatible with” Article 23 of the European Union Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC), the supreme court said in a statement.
The supreme court said it also accepted Google's third ground for appeal on whether the court of appeal “was right to disapply” Section 13(2) of the 1998 act “on the grounds that it conflicts with the rights guaranteed” by Articles 7 (right to private and family life) and 8 (right to the protection of personal data) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
At a London-based law firm's annual data protection workshop held July 1, David Smith, deputy commissioner for the U.K. Information Commissioner's Office, said that courts in the U.K. and in the EU are increasingly taking more seriously Article 8 in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The supreme court, however, rejected Google's first ground for appeal, which questioned “whether the Court of Appeal was right to hold the Claimant's claims for misuse of private information are claims made in tort for the purposes of the rules relating to service out of the jurisdiction.”
One of the clarifications of law made by the court of appeal in March was the classification of the misuse of private information as a tort.
According to the supreme court's order, “this ground does not raise an arguable point of law.”
With assistance from Donald G. Aplin in Washington
To contact the reporter on this story: Ali Qassim in London at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Katie W. Johnson at firstname.lastname@example.org
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)