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.
We've still got months to go before the new iPhone 17 models come out, but a combination of dummy models and leaks have given us some insight into what we can expect in terms of camera changes.
Apple is adding new camera features, and changing the design of the camera bump for some models. You might be skeptical of dummy models, but over the years, they've proven to be a highly accurate...
Apple today seeded the release candidate version of iOS 18.5 to developers and public beta testers, giving us a look at the final version of the update that will be provided to the public next week.
With the release candidate, Apple provided release notes, so we have a more complete look at the new features that are included in the update, including those that weren't found during the beta...
In its press release for the new Pride Band today, Apple said that iOS 18.5 is "upcoming," following more than a month of beta testing.
We expect the iOS 18.5 Release Candidate to be released this week, and this should be the final beta version, barring any last-minute bugs or changes. The software update should then be released to the general public next week.
iOS 18.5 is a relatively...
Apple's former design chief Jony Ive long dreamed of an iPhone with a truly all-screen design, and his wish might finally become reality in a few more years.
The Information today cited multiple sources who said that at least one new iPhone model launching in 2027 will have a truly edge-to-edge display. The device's front camera and Face ID system would both be placed under the screen....
Apple plans to release its first foldable iPhone next year, according to several reporters and analysts who cover the company.
In his Power On newsletter today, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman said the foldable iPhone will offer two key advantages over other foldable smartphones.
First, he said the foldable iPhone will have a "nearly invisible" crease when unfolded. This means the device's...
Apple's rumored iPhone 17 Air model will have "worse" battery life compared to previous iPhone models, according to a paywalled The Information report.
In internal testing, Apple determined that the percentage of users who will be able to use the iPhone 17 Air for a full day without needing to recharge the device throughout the day will be between 60% and 70%, according to the report. For...
Tuesday April 29, 2025 1:30 am PDT by Tim Hardwick
Despite being more than two years old, Apple's AirPods Pro 2 still dominate the premium wireless‑earbud space, thanks to a potent mix of top‑tier audio, class‑leading noise cancellation, and Apple's habit of delivering major new features through software updates. With AirPods Pro 3 widely expected to arrive in 2025, prospective buyers now face a familiar dilemma: snap up the proven...
Apple today announced its 2025 Pride Collection, including a new Apple Watch band, watch face, and a matching wallpaper for the iPhone and iPad.
Ahead of Pride Month in June, Apple says its Pride Collection celebrates the strength and beauty of LGBTQ+ communities around the world.
The new Pride Edition Sport Band is now available to order on Apple.com and in the Apple Store app in 40mm,...
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?
