![]() ![]() The decision in Stadler is also consistent with other recent English High Court decisions which have resisted attempts to establish a compensatory regime for "mere" data breaches without evidence of harm. This indication that claimants pursuant to Article 82 UK GDPR will be required to demonstrate loss will be welcomed by data controllers, and appears to confirm the more limited role that representative actions are likely to play in data breach claims. ![]() The Court also struck out the claimant's concurrent claims for (i) misuse of private information and breach of confidence, on the basis that it would be "artificial" to characterise the disposal of a defective device which held information as a "misuse" of that information and (ii) negligence because the claimant's pecuniary loss had been fully compensated. Although the claimant's claim under UK GDPR was not struck out and allowed to proceed, it was transferred to the "small claims" court due to its low value, meaning that, in the ordinary course, legal fees would not be recoverable under costs-shifting rules. The High Court applied the Lloyd analysis to the claims, and reiterated that proof of damage or distress would be required for such claims to succeed. The retailer applied to strike out the claims at a preliminary stage. Although the retailer refunded the purchase price and made an ex gratia payment of £200, the customer sued for damages. ![]() Stadler, albeit not a representative action, concerned an application to strike out a claim for damages (including pursuant to Article 82 UK GDPR) by a claimant who had returned a defective television to a retailer without having logged out of the Amazon Prime app the claimant's account details were used to purchase a movie for £3.49. The decision in Lloyd was made pursuant to the superseded Data Protection Act 1998, and while it was assumed that the same approach would be adopted under the UK GDPR, that question has not, until now, been the subject of judicial consideration. a US-style "opt out" class action), on the basis that damages are not to be awarded for a mere loss of control of personal data, absent evidence of pecuniary loss and distress ( Lloyd v Google LLC UKSC 50). The claimant in that case could not satisfy the "same interest" test required for a representative action to proceed, as he had not presented evidence of the harm suffered by each individual claimant within the group he purported to represent. Prior to the decision in Stadler, in November 2021, the UKSC delivered a unanimous judgment rejecting attempts by an individual data subject to bring a "representative claim" (i.e. On 31 January 2022, the English High Court delivered its judgment in Stadler v Currys Group Limited (EWHC 160 (QB)) the latest in a series of rulings which appear set to constrain the relatively nascent UK data breach claims industry. Looking Ahead: The correct approach to the interpretation of Article 82 of the GDPR has been referred to the European Court of Justice ("CJEU") by an Austrian court, and a similar referral may shortly follow from the German courts, which may significantly affect the approach both in the European Union, and the UK. This is the latest of several recent decisions which affect the viability of mass data breach compensation claims. A recent English High Court decision has adopted the same approach to claims brought under the UK GDPR. The Background: The UK Supreme Court's ("UKSC") decision in Lloyd v Google determined that damages claims under the Data Protection Act 2018 require evidence of pecuniary loss and distress, and will not be awarded for mere loss of control of personal data. However, the growth of specialist data breach law firms means that further attempts to broaden access to damages are inevitable. The Development: Recent High Court caselaw suggests a more restrictive approach to the treatment of damages claims in relation to data breaches (including pursuant to the UK General Data Protection Regulation ("UK GDPR")), which will be welcomed by UK data controllers and processors.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |