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.
Thursday September 25, 2025 1:11 pm PDT by Joe Rossignol
Apple is developing an all-new operating system codenamed "Charismatic," according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman.
Apple smart home hub concept based on rumors
This is likely Apple's long-rumored "homeOS" operating system.
In a report last month, Gurman said both Apple's rumored smart home hub in 2026 and tabletop robot in 2027 will run the new operating system. He said the software platform ...
Wednesday September 24, 2025 3:58 pm PDT by Juli Clover
With the iPhone 15 series, I did an experiment and kept my iPhone's Charge Limit set at 80 percent for an entire year. It provided an interesting look at the impact of charge limits on battery longevity, so I decided to repeat it for the iPhone 16 line.
Since September 2024, my iPhone 16 Pro Max has been limited to an 80 percent charge, with no cheating. As of today, my battery's maximum...
Wednesday September 24, 2025 7:20 am PDT by Joe Rossignol
Apple's annual "Back to School" promotion for students ends soon, so act fast if you want to score free AirPods with the purchase of an eligible new Mac or iPad.
Until Tuesday, September 30, college students and qualifying educational staff in the U.S. can receive free AirPods 4 with Active Noise Cancellation when they purchase an eligible new Mac or iPad from Apple. This is a $179 value.
...
Tuesday September 23, 2025 8:55 am PDT by Joe Rossignol
While the iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max are still a year away, there are already a few rumors about the devices that offer an early look ahead.
Below, we have recapped some of the early iPhone 18 Pro rumors so far. This story was published previously, and it has been updated to reflect the latest rumors.
Many early rumors prove to be true, but nothing is confirmed yet, and Apple's...
Sunday September 28, 2025 1:30 pm PDT by Joe Rossignol
Apple is preparing to release iOS 26.0.1, according to a private account on X with a proven track record of sharing information about future iOS versions.
The account initially said iOS 26.0.1 would have a build number of 23A350, but they now expect the update to have a build number of 23A355. This suggests that the software update will include more bug fixes or changes than initially...
Friday September 26, 2025 6:57 am PDT by Joe Rossignol
In March, Apple delayed the launch of its personalized Siri features, and soon after the company was hit with multiple class action lawsuits over the situation.
The plaintiffs said they never would have purchased an iPhone 16, or would have paid less, had they known Apple's marketing about the Siri features was false.
In the U.S., all of the complaints were consolidated into one class...
Friday September 26, 2025 9:01 am PDT by Joe Rossignol
The website ChargerLAB has tested the standard iPhone 17 model's USB-C charging speeds with a variety of Apple's chargers, from 18W to 140W.
The device reached a peak charging speed of around 27W to 28W with these Apple chargers:29W USB-C Power Adapter
30W USB-C Power Adapter
35W Dual USB-C Port Power Adapter
35W Dual USB-C Port Compact Power Adapter
40W Dynamic Power Adapter with 60W Max...
Sunday September 28, 2025 2:08 pm PDT by Joe Rossignol
Apple's next MacBook Pro models will enter mass production soon, according to the latest information shared by Bloomberg's Mark Gurman.
In his Power On newsletter today, Gurman said he continues to believe the new MacBook Pro models will be released at some point between late 2025 and the first quarter of 2026, meaning they should be available to order by March at the latest.
Apple often...
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?
