I a sure google,. et al will now be scrambling to rework their privacy
clauses to try and exempt themselves retrospectively from liability.
nice find Doug.
On 03/04/2015 15:30, Douglas Rankine wrote:
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/
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