Google swats away £3bn Safari Workaround ad-tracking cookie lawsuit in Supreme Court victory

Campaigners' case had 'no real prospect of success'


Google has successfully fought off a £3bn lawsuit brought in London over ad tracking cookies, beating the Google You Owe Us campaign in the Supreme Court of England and Wales.

The case, brought in 2017, had "no real prospect of success", the Supreme Court unanimously ruled this morning, in a devastating blow for organisations hoping it would create new law allowing them to easily launch opt-out class action lawsuits against companies who leak user data or whose data stores are broken into.

Former Which? director Richard Lloyd was the frontman of the case. He lost because his legal team filed suit against Google "without attempting to show that any wrongful use was made by Google of personal data relating to that individual or that the individual suffered any material damage or distress as a result of a breach", as the court ruled.

Lloyd pursued his claim for financial damages from Google under section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998, saying in effect that it was obvious the planting of ad tracking cookies through the Safari Workaround was unlawful – meaning users subjected to it should receive compensation. Lord Leggatt, giving the Supreme Court's judgment, ruled that Lloyd's legal team had missed the mark by not collecting evidence of "material damage or distress" to each individual who signed up for their class action.

The Supreme Court judge added that Lloyd's lawyers had set the bar for membership of their class too low. Instead of assessing whether each person in the class (action) had suffered measurable damage from the Safari Workaround cookies, they had chosen "not to rely on any facts about the internet activity of any individual iPhone user".

The judge ruled: "I cannot see that the facts which the claimant aims to prove in each individual case are sufficient to surmount this threshold."

In a statement a Google spokeswoman said: "This claim was related to events that took place a decade ago and that we addressed at the time. People want to know that they are safe and secure online, which is why for years we've focused on building products and infrastructure that respect and protect people's privacy."

Lloyd told newswires outside the court that the government ought to step in and clarify the rules around class action-style lawsuits. His campaign, Google You Owe Us, described this morning's ruling as a "bitter blow", saying: "Although the Court once again recognised that our action is the only practical way that millions of British people can get access to fair redress, they've slammed the door shut on this case by ruling that everyone affected must go to court individually."

Will Richmond-Coggan, a data protection lawyer with City firm Freeths, commented: "This has wide-ranging implications for the very large numbers of group claims brought in the wake of the Court of Appeal’s decision, which depended on the mere fact of a technical breach of the legislation, rather than being able to point to any specific loss or damage having been suffered. Such claims are likely to be significantly more costly and time-consuming to pursue in future".

While it dismissed Lloyd's case, the Supreme Court did also give the green light to commercially-controlled lawsuits run through a nominal figurehead such as Lloyd, ruling: "There is no reason why a representative party cannot properly represent the interests of all members of the class, provided there is no true conflict of interest between them."

Julian Copeman, a partner of London law firm Herbert Smith Freehills, opined: "The Supreme Court has suggested a US style class action could still be brought to determine liability, but that smaller group claims would then be needed to deal with different issues of compensation. Businesses should still ensure their data and privacy risk management frameworks are fit for purpose – the floodgates have not been opened, but group data claims remain a threat."

For now, at least, Google's breathing easy – though this morning's multi-billion dollar judgment against it [PDF] in Luxembourg won't give it much room for complacency. The EU's General Court this morning upheld the record €2.42bn fine imposed by the Commission in 2017 despite protests from the Chocolate Factory. It said in a statement just minutes ago that it "recognises the anticompetitive nature of the practice at issue." ®

Broader topics


Other stories you might like

  • Robotics and 5G to spur growth of SoC industry – report
    Big OEMs hogging production and COVID causing supply issues

    The system-on-chip (SoC) side of the semiconductor industry is poised for growth between now and 2026, when it's predicted to be worth $6.85 billion, according to an analyst's report. 

    Chances are good that there's an SoC-powered device within arm's reach of you: the tiny integrated circuits contain everything needed for a basic computer, leading to their proliferation in mobile, IoT and smart devices. 

    The report predicting the growth comes from advisory biz Technavio, which looked at a long list of companies in the SoC market. Vendors it analyzed include Apple, Broadcom, Intel, Nvidia, TSMC, Toshiba, and more. The company predicts that much of the growth between now and 2026 will stem primarily from robotics and 5G. 

    Continue reading
  • Deepfake attacks can easily trick live facial recognition systems online
    Plus: Next PyTorch release will support Apple GPUs so devs can train neural networks on their own laptops

    In brief Miscreants can easily steal someone else's identity by tricking live facial recognition software using deepfakes, according to a new report.

    Sensity AI, a startup focused on tackling identity fraud, carried out a series of pretend attacks. Engineers scanned the image of someone from an ID card, and mapped their likeness onto another person's face. Sensity then tested whether they could breach live facial recognition systems by tricking them into believing the pretend attacker is a real user.

    So-called "liveness tests" try to authenticate identities in real-time, relying on images or video streams from cameras like face recognition used to unlock mobile phones, for example. Nine out of ten vendors failed Sensity's live deepfake attacks.

    Continue reading
  • Lonestar plans to put datacenters in the Moon's lava tubes
    How? Founder tells The Register 'Robots… lots of robots'

    Imagine a future where racks of computer servers hum quietly in darkness below the surface of the Moon.

    Here is where some of the most important data is stored, to be left untouched for as long as can be. The idea sounds like something from science-fiction, but one startup that recently emerged from stealth is trying to turn it into a reality. Lonestar Data Holdings has a unique mission unlike any other cloud provider: to build datacenters on the Moon backing up the world's data.

    "It's inconceivable to me that we are keeping our most precious assets, our knowledge and our data, on Earth, where we're setting off bombs and burning things," Christopher Stott, founder and CEO of Lonestar, told The Register. "We need to put our assets in place off our planet, where we can keep it safe."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022