Google

Subscribe to Google

On June 30, 2016, Google withdrew its appeal from the UK Supreme Court in the landmark case of Google v. Vidal-Hall after the parties reached a settlement. In the ruling on appeal, the Court of Appeal had ruled that damages for emotional distress, without any pecuniary loss, may be awarded under the Data Protection Act 1998 (the “Act”). With the appeal withdrawn, this ruling will remain valid. Therefore, companies that operate in the UK may wish to consider this ruling when conducting risk analyses and responding to litigation.

In re: Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation, involves 24 consolidated lawsuits that were initially brought against several internet advertisers alleging violations of various state and federal privacy statutes, including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Wiretap Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. In October of 2013, the District of Delaware dismissed the consolidated case, finding that “that plaintiffs have not alleged injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing” and that they had failed to “[plead] sufficient facts to establish a plausible invasion of the rights” under various statutes asserted in the complaints. However, on November 10, 2015, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order restoring some of the plaintiffs’ claims alleging that Google’s internet tracking practices violate California’s Constitution and state privacy laws.

In a recent blog post, reflecting on Google’s ongoing dispute with France’s CNIL about the scope of the “right to be forgotten,” Peter Fleisher, Google’s Global Privacy Counsel, announced that Google will maintain its position that that company would not comply with the CNIL’s formal notice dated May 21, 2015 to implement individuals’ requests to exercise their “right to be forgotten” on the company’s sites worldwide.