Lloyd v Google and its €2.4bn EU Fine​


By Patricia K​

What do you need to know this week?

The past week has been a tumultuous one for Google.

On the bright side, the UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favour of the tech giant in Lloyd v Google LLC last Wednesday. This case involved a £3.3 billion class-action lawsuit against Google where it was alleged that Google breached its duties as a ‘data controller’ under the Data Protection Act 1998 by tracking the internet activity of over 4.4 million iPhone users. The Court reached this conclusion on the basis that representative action cases, such as this one, needed to show that each individual suffered a breach and damage as a result of that breach, which was not satisfied in this case.

However, in the same week, Google also lost its appeal against a €2.4bn fine from the European Commission. Google was originally fined in 2017 for favouring its shopping service over competitors.

Why is this important for your interviews?

The decision Lloyd v Google is important because of its wider impact on large class-action cases in the field of data collection and protection. By allowing Google’s appeal, the Supreme Court has eased concerns over a ‘floodgate’ of personal data class-action cases.

In particular, the class-action case brought against TikTok for using children’s data without their informed consent is likely to be impacted as its proceedings were put on hold pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Lloyd v Google.

Given the favourable judgment for Google, it may be the case that a similar fate lies ahead for TikTok. Since the topic of personal data is so relevant in the current climate, it is interesting to see how the law attempts to balance the interests of big tech and the privacy rights of individuals.

Google’s €2.4bn fine is also a relevant antitrust issue and a reminder of the importance of regulating large organisations and maintaining competition in their respective markets.

How is this topic relevant to law firms?

Law firms will need to be aware of the Court’s stance on data protection class-action claims, especially considering the potential scale of the litigation claims against any technology clients.

Pinsent Masons LLP acted for Google in this case. However, a number of other law firms have also offered detailed explanations of this case and its implications (eg. Pinsent Masons, HSF, Clifford Chance, Linklaters).

As for Google’s fine, this will be relevant for Antitrust and Competition teams who will need to stay informed of the implications (eg. high fines) associated with potential anti-competitive behaviour conducted by current and future clients.