Lloyd v Google LLC

Decision date: 10 November 2021

Neutral citation: [2021] UKSC 50

Court: United Kingdom Supreme Court

Insurance classification confidence: high

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary, or obiter dicta summary on this page is AI-generated. It is provided solely to help users assess possible relevance and may be inaccurate or incomplete. It is not legal advice. Users should read the original judgment and obtain appropriate legal advice before relying on any summary.

Short overview

A short description of the case, material issue, and outcome where supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this overview: high

This case concerns a claim by Mr Lloyd seeking to represent millions of iPhone users in damages under the Data Protection Act 1998 for Google's alleged "Safari workaround" tracking. The central issue was whether compensation for "loss of control" of personal data can be awarded on a uniform, non‑individualised basis and whether the claim was suitable as a representative action. The Supreme Court held the claim had no real prospect of success because, to recover compensation under the Act for any individual, it was necessary to prove unlawful use of that individual's personal data by Google and that the individual suffered damage; permission to serve out was refused.

Ratio decidendi

The legal reasoning necessary to the outcome, where it can safely be identified from the judgment.

AI confidence in this ratio summary: high

To recover compensation under the Data Protection Act 1998 for a given individual, it is necessary to show (a) that the defendant made some unlawful use of personal data relating to that individual and (b) that the individual suffered some damage as a result; a uniform award without such individual proof cannot succeed.

Obiter dicta

Judicial observations that were not necessary to the outcome, where they can safely be identified.

AI confidence in this obiter summary: low

No clear obiter dicta can safely be identified from the judgment.

Warning

The automated summary was prepared from the beginning and end of a long judgment; consult the original decision for the complete reasoning. The middle of the judgment was omitted from the judgment, which may have removed additional factual detail or reasoning relevant to the issues summarized.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML