The United Kingdom's Supreme Court today sided with Google in restoring its appeal against a lawsuit that accused it of wrongly tracking users within the iPhone's Safari browser without their consent.
According to the ruling, the judge believed that the lawsuit, which sought to ask for compensation from Google for millions of users allegedly affected by its tracking practices, is "officious" and is acting on behalf of individuals who have not authorized such legal action.
The judge took the view that, even if the legal foundation for the claim made in this action were sound, he should exercise the discretion conferred by CPR rule 19.6(2) by refusing to allow the claim to be continued as a representative action. He characterised the claim as "officious litigation, embarked upon on behalf of individuals who have not authorised it" and in which the main beneficiaries of any award of damages would be the funders and the lawyers.
The case, Lloyd vs. Google, has been a landmark case in the world of privacy cases against larger tech companies. Richard Lloyd claims that between 2011 and 2012, Google tracked users using embedded cookies within its ads network on the iOS Safari browser, despite telling users that no such tracking was taking place.
Lloyd's case against Google was settled in the United States in August 2012, where Google was ruled to pay a $22.5 million penalty. As the FTC wrote at the time, explaining Google's wrongdoing:
In its complaint, the FTC charged that for several months in 2011 and 2012, Google placed a certain advertising tracking cookie on the computers of Safari users who visited sites within Google's DoubleClick advertising network, although Google had previously told these users they would automatically be opted out of such tracking, as a result of the default settings of the Safari browser used in Macs, iPhones and iPads.
According to the FTC's complaint, Google specifically told Safari users that because the Safari browser is set by default to block third-party cookies, as long as users do not change their browser settings, this setting "effectively accomplishes the same thing as [opting out of this particular Google advertising tracking cookie]."
London's High Court initially blocked attempts to bring the case against Google, but the Court of Appeal upheld it. Google subsequently appealed that decision, escalating the case to the UK's Supreme Court. The high court today has decided to keep in place the appeal.
Wednesday May 28, 2025 11:56 am PDT by Juli Clover
With the design overhaul that's coming this year, Apple plans to rename all of its operating systems, reports Bloomberg. Going forward, iOS, iPadOS, macOS, tvOS, watchOS, and visionOS will be identified by year, rather than by version number. We're not going to be getting iOS 19, we're getting iOS 26.
Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos.
iOS 26 will be accompanied by...
While the iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max are not expected to launch until September, there are already plenty of rumors about the devices.
Below, we recap key changes rumored for the iPhone 17 Pro models as of May 2025:
Aluminum frame: iPhone 17 Pro models are rumored to have an aluminum frame, whereas the iPhone 15 Pro and iPhone 16 Pro models have a titanium frame, and the iPhone X ...
Apple's iPhone 17 lineup will include four iPhones, and two of those are going to get all-new display sizes. There's the iPhone 17 Air, which we've heard about several times, but the standard iPhone 17 is also going to have a different display size.
We've heard a bit about the updated size before, but with most rumors focusing on the iPhone 17 Air, it's easy to forget. Display analyst Ross...
Sony today provided a closer look at the iPhone rigs used to shoot the upcoming post-apocalyptic British horror movie "28 Years Later" (via IGN).
With a budget of $75 million, Danny Boyle's 28 Years Later will become the first major blockbuster movie to be shot on iPhone. 28 Years Later is the sequel to "28 Days Later" (2002) and "28 Weeks Later" (2007), which depict the aftermath of a...
The next major version of macOS, now dubbed "macOS 26," is rumored to drop support for several older Intel-based Mac models currently compatible with macOS Sequoia.
According to individuals familiar with the matter cited by AppleInsider, the following Macs will not be supported by the next version of macOS:
MacBook Pro (2018)
iMac (2019)
iMac Pro (2017)
Mac mini (2018)
MacB...
With the next-generation version of iOS and other 2025 software updates, Apple is planning to change its numbering scheme. Rather than iOS 19, which would logically follow iOS 18, Apple is instead going to call the update iOS 26. Apple plans to use 26 across all of its platforms (the number representing the upcoming year), which will presumably be less confusing than having iOS 19, macOS 16,...
Apple is reportedly preparing to implement significant iPhone hardware redesigns each year for the next three generations.
According leaks from the Chinese supply chain disclosed by Weibo user "Digital Chat Station," Apple plans to carry out a series of phased industrial design changes affecting different parts of the iPhone across three consecutive years: 2025, 2026, and 2027. The changes...
The bottom line is that the UK does not have a class action mechanism (apart from special circumstances). Hence the claim was incompetent as "officious litigation, embarked upon on behalf of individuals who have not authorised it".
The bottom line is that the UK does not have a class action mechanism (apart from special circumstances). Hence the claim was incompetent as "officious litigation, embarked upon on behalf of individuals who have not authorised it".
Ok I understand now. Although the accusation against Google was true, those who brought the lawsuit and no authority to initiate the lawsuit. Therefore, Google gets away with lying to users.
In layman's terms, what is the bottom line? Did the British court decide that Google tracked users despite telling users they were not tracking and although Google did this, it's OK and no penalty for Google?
I think they concluded it was a complete waste of time as 'millions' of people did not give their consent for the law case against google being performed under their names. So the court has in effect throwing the case out highlighting it as a waste of time and only the lawyers will be the beneficiaries from such a case, not the consumers. That's how I've read it.
I also wonder if this means google has not breached any U.K. privacy laws as such either if they've thrown the case out?
