Sometimes the Easter Bunny comes bearing mysteriously non-egg shaped gifts to the data protection practitioner. The judgment of the always-worth-reading Warby J in Rudd v Bridle & J&S Bridle Ltd [2019] EWHC 893 (QB) is just such a delivery, albeit that this one appears to contain a high content of asbestos.
Large-scale civil litigation is one of the developing contours of data protection law. Last week’s judgment in Lloyd v Google – a novel representative action based on allegedly unlawful processing activities – is one illustration. When it comes to group litigation on the back of a data breach, our best illustration thus far is the […]
Everyone is weighing in on the right to be forgotten these days and now, not to miss a turn on the rights bandwagon when its Luxembourg rival has got in ahead of it, the European Court of Human Rights has had a go too in ML & WW v Germany (App. No. 60798/10 and 65599/10) […]
Three updates for data protection watchers about cases with a wide-ranging potential impact in the Luxembourg courts.
The judgment of Mitting J in the case of TLT is now routinely invoked in the context of discussions over how you go about quantifying the value of a distress damages claim where there has been a data breach. In TLT, the Home Office had accidentally disclosed online a spreadsheet containing data relating to asylum […]
It has taken some time for the principles recognised – somewhat ambiguously – in Google Spain to be tested in the English courts. Although the so-called right to be forgotten has rarely left the public memory (at least of that wretched and spindly section of the public which is interested in data protection), taking on […]
