Joined in 2023 
82 
63 About this deal
The court held for the defendant that no such liability existed, as (a) the GDPR would have referred to ‘representative liability’“ more clearly in its operative provisions” had it intended to impose this, (b) Representatives do not have power over controllers or processors “ on a day to day basis over how and why data are processed”, and (c) the European Data Protection Board (“ EDPB”) guidelines state Representatives are “ not responsible for complying with data subject rights”. As such, the remedies sought could only be obtained directly from WorldCo. Managed Innovation” (APO04), specifically the management practice of “ Monitor the Implementation and Use of Innovation” (APO04.06), where the innovation in this case is AI
privacy case at High Court Cliff Richard: Singer wins BBC privacy case at High Court
Fearn and others (Appellants) v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery (Respondent) Case ID: 2020/0056 Case summary Issue In a statement, Meghan said: “After two long years of pursuing litigation, I am grateful to the courts for holding Associated Newspapers and the Mail on Sunday to account for their illegal and dehumanising practices. Consent is also not as powerful a tool as one may be led to believe, even if the requirements for consent are that it is informed and freely given. The Clearview AI example shows that consent was not sought as much as it should have been according to the OPC. As a similar example, Microsoft removed its database of 10 million facial photographs – which were being used by organizations like IBM, Panasonic, Alibaba, military researchers and Chinese surveillance firms – as most of the people whose faces were in the dataset were not aware their image had been included. The data protection class action against Google which found that they are permissible in the case of DPA breaches for the Safari Workaround. The case sets a precedent for representative opt-out style class actions for data protection breaches under UK law. An application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is pending. INFORRM had a case comment. Coverage from legal outlets was broad including Matrix Chambers, DLA Piper, Linklaters and Farrer & Co.Essentially, whilst it might have been proportionate to disclose and publish a very small part of the Letter to rebut inaccuracies in the People Article, it was not necessary to deploy half the contents of the Letter as Associated Newspapers did. As the Articles themselves demonstrate, and as the judge found, the primary purpose of the Articles was not to publish Mr Markle’s responses to the inaccurate allegations against him in the People Article. The true purpose of the publication was, as the first 4 lines of the Articles said: to reveal for the first time [to the world] the “[t]he full content of a sensational letter written by [the Duchess] to her estranged father shortly after her wedding”. The contents of the Letter were private when it was written and when it was published, even if the claimant, it now appears, realised that her father might leak its contents to the media.” [106]
Kaye v Robertson - Wikipedia Kaye v Robertson - Wikipedia
There were various appeals but in November of 2021 Google was ultimately successful with the Supreme Court ruling that the “lowest common denominator” approach was not appropriate and that neither damages for “loss of control” of data without any material damage or distress, nor “user damages” are available in claims under section 13 of the DPA 1998. As a result, Lloyd’s claim could not be served on Google (although they may still apply where claims rely upon the tort of misuse of private information). The Federal Court of Australia found that Google misled some users about the personal location data it collected through Android devices between January 2017 and December 2018. Also expected to impact the allocation of claims involving “trivial” breaches of data protection legislation, as the court made clear that the High Court was not the appropriate forum for these (see also Warren v DSG Retail Ltd above). The degree of that harm depends on the factual circumstances, but experience shows that it can be profound and irremediable.”He also found that the MoS’s articles “copied a large and important proportion of the work’s original literary content”. Warby said there would be a further hearing in March to decide the next steps in the legal action. Meghan’s data protection claim is still outstanding.
Great Deal 
New Comment