Outcome at a glance
Google won its appeal. The representative damages claim could not proceed in the form advanced, and permission to serve Google outside the jurisdiction was refused.
Allegations & issues
Lloyd alleged unlawful tracking of iPhone users and sought uniform compensation without proving each person’s circumstances.
Key rulings & findings
Under section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998, unlawful processing alone did not establish compensable damage. The proposed claim lacked individual proof of processing and resulting material damage or distress.
Admissions
No admission is recorded in this appeal outcome.
Disposition
Appeal unanimously allowed; the first-instance order refusing permission to serve abroad was restored.
Penalties, damages & redress
No damages were awarded in this appeal.
Restrictions & obligations
The decision addressed the proposed representative claim, not a regulatory sanction.
The proposed claim and why it failed
The claim concerned alleged tracking of iPhone users in 2011–12. Lloyd sought a uniform sum for each represented person without investigating individual loss or the extent of processing for that person. The case therefore depended on whether unlawful processing alone could support the proposed damages approach under the 1998 Act. [1; 2]
The Court held that section 13 required material damage or distress caused by a breach, rather than treating the breach itself as the compensable damage. Even apart from that point, the claim could not avoid showing what processing had occurred in an individual’s case. Permission to serve the proposed proceedings abroad was consequently refused. [1; 2, Reasons]
The representative procedure was not abolished
The judgment recognised that representative proceedings could determine common issues and, in suitable cases, support damages calculated on a common basis. It also discussed establishing liability collectively before individual compensation claims. That two-stage approach was not the case advanced by Lloyd. [1; 2, Reasons]
The result was a defeat for this litigation structure under this statute. It was not a trial finding that all tracking was lawful, a judgment under the later UK GDPR regime, or a categorical prohibition on representative proceedings. Those distinctions explain the narrower significance of Google’s successful appeal. [1; 2]
THE UNDERLYING RECORD
Primary sources
Read the full documents for their precise wording and context. Regulator summaries are identified separately from court records.
Court record · supremecourt.uk01 · Supreme Court · Case record and judgment ↗Court record · supremecourt.uk02 · Supreme Court · Press summary, 10 November 2021 ↗