header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 November 2021 / David Greene
Issue: 7957 / Categories: Opinion , Collective action , Privacy
printer mail-detail

A bumpy ride ahead for Google?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
64414
Google and its detractors suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, as David Greene reports

Last week was an action-packed week for Google Inc on the swings and roundabouts of the judicial process; winning in the Supreme Court against a consumer campaigner seeking to bring a class action for an estimated four million iPhone users, but losing to the European Commission in the General Court of the European Court of Justice. Both decisions are of heightened significance for the legal community; closing the door on one aspect of domestic class actions but opening another door to many years of litigation for Google and its regulatory detractors.

Lloyd v Google ([2021] UKSC 50)

Richard Lloyd, a consumer campaigner, brought a claim against Google after Google agreed to pay hefty fines to the US Federal Trade Commission in relation to the misuse of customers’ data through its DoubleClick Ad software. Claims followed in the courts with a US class action and a claim here by three individuals (Vidal-Hall v Google).

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll