It should be noted that claimant has been granted permission to appeal and so this verdict may change in the future. Hamblen and Stephens continued: “Reputational and other harm will ordinarily be caused to the individual by the publication of such information. Representative actions of this kind seeking damages are not appropriate for claims of this nature, and whilst these remain possible (i.e. by seeking a declaration of liability, including a declaration that any member of the represented class who has suffered damage by reason of the breach is entitled to be paid compensation, with damages then being assessed individually at a later stage), the scope for bringing such claims has now been reduced. The court held for the defendant that no such liability existed, as (a) the GDPR would have referred to ‘representative liability’“ more clearly in its operative provisions” had it intended to impose this, (b) Representatives do not have power over controllers or processors “ on a day to day basis over how and why data are processed”, and (c) the European Data Protection Board (“ EDPB”) guidelines state Representatives are “ not responsible for complying with data subject rights”. As such, the remedies sought could only be obtained directly from WorldCo.

Kaye v Robertson - Wikipedia Kaye v Robertson - Wikipedia

Attempts to ‘augment’ what should be a clear claim for breach of data protection law with various other heads of claim are less likely to be successful.There were various appeals but in November of 2021 Google was ultimately successful with the Supreme Court ruling that the “lowest common denominator” approach was not appropriate and that neither damages for “loss of control” of data without any material damage or distress, nor “user damages” are available in claims under section 13 of the DPA 1998. As a result, Lloyd’s claim could not be served on Google (although they may still apply where claims rely upon the tort of misuse of private information). The data protection class action against Google which found that they are permissible in the case of DPA breaches for the Safari Workaround. The case sets a precedent for representative opt-out style class actions for data protection breaches under UK law. An application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is pending. INFORRM had a case comment. Coverage from legal outlets was broad including Matrix Chambers, DLA Piper, Linklaters and Farrer & Co. He also found that the MoS’s articles “copied a large and important proportion of the work’s original literary content”.

Case details - Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Case details - Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

The businessman in Wednesday’s ruling successfully argued that, under the European convention on human rights, he had a reasonable expectation that the details of the British regulator’s criminal investigation into him would not be made public unless he was charged with an offence. In this case the Alberta Court of the Queen’s Bench awarded damages under new “public disclosure of private fact” tort. The case concerned the making public of images of the claimant engaging in sex acts with the defendant- these had been shared during a romantic relationship between 2005 to 2016 where the parties had two children together. The parties had a mutual understanding that the images would not be shared or published anywhere. However, the defendant then proceeded to share the images online, including those involving the sexual assault of the claimant.The Court found that, in providing the option, “Don’t save my Location History in my Google Account”, represented to some reasonable consumers that they could prevent their location data being saved on their Google Account. In actual fact, users need to change an additional setting, separate, to stop their location data being saved to their Google Account. However, Le Soir created a free, electronic, searchable version of its archives from 1989 onwards, including the article at issue. G relied on the fact that the article appeared in response to a search on his name on Le Soir’s internal search engine and on Google Search. He explained that its availability was damaging to his reputation, particularly in his work as a doctor. The newspaper refused the application by stated it had asked Google to delist/deindex the article.