header-logo header-logo

Meta faces mega lawsuit

02 September 2022
Issue: 7992 / Categories: Legal News , Technology , Media , Collective action
printer mail-detail
A date has been set for the first stage of a gigantic opt-out class action against Facebook (now known as Meta), worth a potential £2.2bn

The claim argues that Facebook (Meta) imposed unfair terms, prices and/or trading conditions on UK Facebook users. These include that Facebook unfairly required users to hand over their personal data as a condition of access to the social network and failed to share with its users the profits it made from such data. It seeks compensation for loss and damage that members of the proposed class suffered as a result of this unlawful conduct.

The deadline for anyone wishing to be heard as to whether the case should proceed is 10 October. A certification hearing will be held at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) between 30 January and 1 February 2023 to decide whether the claim can proceed as a collective action and move to a full trial.

The proposed class is all people domiciled in the UK between 11 February 2016 and 31 December 2019 who used Facebook at least once. The class representative, subject to authorisation, is Dr Lovdahl-Gormsen, senior research fellow at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) and the director of the Competition Law Forum. 

Kate Vernon from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK, who is representing Dr Lovdahl-Gormsen in the case, said: ‘Earlier this year Facebook/Meta decided not to challenge the tribunal’s jurisdiction over Meta Inc (Facebook’s US parent company) and Meta Ireland (Facebook’s Irish subsidiary), meaning that the case can now progress against all three proposed defendants in earnest.

‘This was an important step for the claim—as it allows the claim to progress more quickly to the first substantive hearing.’

Opt-out class actions are on the rise—consumer finance campaigner Walter Merricks is pursuing a £14bn one against Mastercard, and has already made significant steps forward in the claim, while in May the Court of Appeal rejected BT’s argument that a class action against it for charging excessive landline fees should be ‘opt-in’. Conversely, in April CAT ruled against opt-out in a Forex rigging claim against banks.
Issue: 7992 / Categories: Legal News , Technology , Media , Collective action
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll