Google Inc v Vidal-Hall & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 311 (27 March 2015)

[Legal Beagles]

More...

[Amethyst]

Re: Google Inc v Vidal-Hall & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 311 (27 March 2015)

The appeal in this case raises two important issues of law. The first is whether the cause of action for misuse of private information is a tort, specifically for the purposes of the rules providing for service of proceedings out of the jurisdiction. The second is the meaning of damage in section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA); in particular, whether there can be a claim for compensation without pecuniary loss.

The Court of Appeal has upheld Justice Tugendhat's landmark judgment in Vidal-Hall et al v Google [1], which memorably classified the misuse of private information as a tort. The Court has also held that claimants may recover damages under the Data Protection Act 1998 for non-material loss.



This ruling allows the three individual claimants to continue their proceedings against Google regarding the tracking and collation of their browser generated information ("BGI") via their Apple Safari browser:



"On the face of it, these claims raise serious issues which merit a trial. They concern what is alleged to have been the secret and blanket tracking and collation of information, often of an extremely private nature, as specified in the confidential schedules, about and associated with the claimants' internet use, and the subsequent use of that information for about nine months. The case relates to the anxiety and distress this intrusion upon autonomy has caused."



In determining whether BGI is personal data under the Data Protection Act 1998 ("DPA"), the substantive proceedings themselves will cover legal ground that is "not clear-cut"and may open the door for a substantial class action by UK Apple users. In the meantime, the Court of Appeal's judgment has clarified two other important issues of law that will undoubtedly have a wide-reaching and significant impact:



(1) whether the cause of action for misuse of private information is a tort; and

(2) the meaning of damage in section 13 DPA; in particular, whether there can be a claim for compensation without pecuniary loss.

http://www.olswang.com/articles/2015...google-upheld/