[cryptome] Google v Vidar Hall: UK Law

  • From: "Douglas Rankine" <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:30:49 +0100

See url:
http://www.5rb.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Vidal-Hall-v-Google.pdf

For case details.

Google collecting private information on you without your permission is a
tort and financial compensation can be claimed in lieu of damages. How much
is yet to be determined. Up till now, you were naked...private information
collected about you was considered worthless, and even if it was valuable,
someone else taking it and using it wasn't considered to be a financial
loss, so you couldn't claim damages....now you have a pair of very expensive
leaky pants... J.

See url: http://www.5rb.com/case/vidal-hall-ors-v-google-inc/

Quote:<<<<

There are two main points of interest in the decision. The first is that it
confirms that misuse of private information is a tort. Although this had
been stated in a number of earlier judgments, which were cited here, there
was a lingering doubt about the status of the cause of action. The fact that
the issue was fully argued here with reference to all of the relevant
authorities, and the expertise of the judge in this field, do make this a
significant statement of the law.

The second is that the judge indicated in a preliminary view that damages
for a breach of the DPA could include non pecuniary damage. The impact of
the DPA in privacy law has to date been limited by the requirement that
damage for distress could only be recovered if pecuniary damage had been
suffered. This development has the potential to make claims under the DPA
far more common in the field of privacy law.

Note: The Upper Tribunal was invited, but declined to follow Tugendhat J's
prelimunary view on the meaning of damage under the DPA when considering
another provision of the Act. See here for further details.
<http://www.5rb.com/news/damage-mean-dpa/> >>>end of quote

ATB

Dougie.



Other related posts: