Vidal-Hall v Google Inc
Misuse of private information is a tort, and compensation for breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 could be recovered for distress without any financial loss.
Facts
The claimants were users of Apple's Safari browser in England. They alleged that Google had collected information about their internet browsing without their knowledge or consent, by using cookies which got round the default privacy settings of the browser, a technique known as the Safari workaround, and had used the information to target advertisements at them. They claimed damages for misuse of private information and breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, and sought permission to serve the claims on Google Inc in the United States. Google argued that misuse of private information was not a tort, and that damages under the Act required financial loss.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that misuse of private information is a tort, for the purpose of the rules on service out of the jurisdiction, and is distinct from breach of confidence. The court also held that damage in section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998 included distress which was not accompanied by financial loss, and that section 13(2), which allowed compensation for distress only where the individual had also suffered damage, was incompatible with article 23 of the Data Protection Directive and should be disapplied, because it conflicted with the right to an effective remedy in article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. There was a serious issue to be tried, and permission to serve out was granted. The case was settled before trial.
Related cases on compensation, enforcement and misuse of private information
- Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5, [2022] AC 1158
- Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457
- Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3) [2007] UKHL 21, [2008] 1 AC 1
- Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 333
- Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50, [2022] AC 1217
- Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB)
- PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26, [2016] AC 1081
- Richard v British Broadcasting Corporation [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch)
Studying data protection and technology law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
