Google asks to have U.K. breach of privacy suit dismissed
Googles lawyers told a London court the breach of privacy suit should be thrown out because the claimants did not hold proper jurisdiction for a suit.
December 16, 2013 at 07:29 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Google may very well be everywhere. According to Alexa.com, Google.com is the most visited website on the Internet worldwide, with 69.8 percent of all visitors coming from outside the United States. 2.9 percent of Google.com's visitors come from the U.K., while an even higher percentage of people visit Google.co.uk.
With all of that traffic, one would expect Google to be hit with privacy lawsuits similar to those the company has faced in the U.S., abroad. But the tech giant rejects these claims, saying that a group of Internet users does not have jurisdiction to bring a breach of privacy suit in the U.K.
On Dec. 16, Google's lawyers told a London court that a breach of privacy suit brought by three Internet users should be thrown out because the claimants did not hold proper grounds for a suit. According to Bloomberg, the company asked the judge to throw out the suit and issue an order “declaring that the court has no jurisdiction to try the claims.”
The suit currently in U.K. court is very similar to a lawsuit brought against Google in the U.S. in October 2013. In both suits, groups of Internet users claim that Google overrode settings for other web browsers, most notably Apple's Safari, in order to track information about customers for targeted advertising. Using cookies, the U.K. suit says, Google tracked a user's race, sexuality, political beliefs, and financial situation among other variables.
Lawyers for the claimants wrote in court documents that Google has “an institutionalized disregard for both the privacy of billions of individual users and for the regulatory regimes of the countries in which it operates” and that its actions “are likely to have affected millions of users in the U.K. and around the world.”
In response to Google's claim that those bringing the suit do not hold jurisdiction, one of the claimants, editor Judith Vidal-Hall, said, “It is ludicrous for it to claim that, despite all of this very commercial activity, it won't answer to our courts.”
However, if U.K. courts follow the U.S. example, Google may not need to worry at all. A U.S. district court threw out the breach of privacy suit against Google in that similar case, saying that the plaintiffs could not adequately show they had been damaged by Google's targeted advertising.
Referring to that case, Google told Bloomberg in a statement, “A case almost identical to this one was dismissed in its entirety two months ago in the U.S. We're asking the court to re-examine whether this case meets the standards required in the U.K. for a case like this to go to trial.”
Google has been in legal news often recently, as found in these InsideCounsel articles:
With all of that traffic, one would expect
On Dec. 16,
The suit currently in U.K. court is very similar to a lawsuit brought against
Lawyers for the claimants wrote in court documents that
In response to
However, if U.K. courts follow the U.S. example,
Referring to that case,
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250