Top UK court to rule whether 4.5m Brit iPhone fanbois can sue Google over cookies

A former director of consumer rights group Which is trying to extract “somewhere between £1bn and £3bn” from Google on behalf of 4.38 million Brits over the naughty placement of advertising cookies. The High Court in London, England, has heard legal arguments this week about whether Richard Lloyd's claim against Google should …

[Anonymous Coward]

Please take Google to the cleaners

Their spying has to stop.

Then turn your attention to Facebook, MS and the rest.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Please take Google to the cleaners

Who do you think is going to get the money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Please take Google to the cleaners - Who do you think is going to get the money?

Well, the government is trying to get Putin's friends - but not his enemies - out of the country and the City will take a hit. So we'd better start funding lawyers to take on large foreign companies before Sunseeker goes out of business.

[JimmyPage]

I predict this will fail.

Since no one will be able to demonstrate a loss.

[Adam 52]

Re: I predict this will fail.

The Court of Appeal has already ruled that people concerned about tracking by Google in Safari without consent are entitled to damages; Google Vs Judith Vidal-Hall Case No: A2/2014/0403 is the thing to search for.

Since then there's been precedent in other Data Protection cases.

One more thing to thank the European courts for providing precedent for.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I predict this will fail.

"Since no one will be able to demonstrate a loss."

They will presumably be able to demonstrate a) it's was illegal and b) a loss of privacy so meeting the requirements for damages.

Good luck with the "you don't have jurisdiction" hogwash. The damage was done here and they have a presence here.

I had PayPal UK claim that when I took them to the small claims court and tried to tell the court that I would have to go after their Luxembourg entity. The judge just added them as a joint defendent so I still got my money back.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I predict this will fail.

"I predict this will fail. Since no one will be able to demonstrate a loss."

IANAL but there was a previous case involving the Data Protection Act and Google in the High Court (and another in Scotland) where a judge ruled that you *do not* need to have suffered a loss in order to be able to claim damages - alarm and distress was enough.

[LeahroyNake]

50%

“The amounts,” warned White, “could be very substantial indeed. If there are 4.4m claimants, each entitled to several hundred pounds, under the current damages-based regime the maximum share is 50 per cent. If 50 per cent were taken by the funder, the amount generated in this action for the funder would be a very substantial sum of money."

So why not just let the bottom feeding scum fight it out. Refuse their offer of 50% and file your own case, if they win it's already been proven and you can have a shed load more cash ?

Probably a long shot but I'm no liarwer.

[Phil Kingston]

>"Lloyd wanted to pay himself “an annual salary of up to £50,000 for a period of up to four years"

Now it makes sense.

[MrZoolook]

How does one "pay themself" anyway? Surely, the net result would be zero income or outgoings...

... I'll get my coat.

[Anonymous Coward]

What £200k out of a potential of several billion. The guy is hardly doing it for the money, I guarantee he can earn more than that a year by not fighting this case.

Plus unlike in America, the money will actually go to real people.

[Christoph]

"The latter’s website declares that they have “a market leading track record of generating superior returns for investors” by funding lawsuits in the UK, continental Europe and the US."

The courts are supposed to be there to right or compensate for wrongs, not to provide returns on investments!