UK High Court Rules in Cookies Claim Against Google
Time 3 Minute Read

On January 16, 2014 the High Court in London rejected submissions made on behalf of Google Inc. (“Google”) that the case brought against it by three UK-based users of Apple’s Safari browser should be heard in the U.S., rather than before an English court. The decision means that the case could be heard before a court in England, although media reports suggest Google will appeal the decision.

The claims against Google arise from the placing of cookies on Apple devices used by the three individuals, resulting in the generation of targeted advertising.

Google is a U.S. corporation registered in Delaware and its principal place of business is in California. The general rule regarding court jurisdiction is that, when the potential defendant is based in the U.S., civil cases must be brought before the U.S. courts, even where those bringing the case are based in another jurisdiction. However, in a limited set of circumstances, English courts are prepared to accept jurisdiction over a case and allow the claimants to serve court papers on a potential defendant outside the jurisdiction. Service of the papers is the first step in having the case heard before an English court.

In order to be allowed to serve the papers outside the UK, the claimants had to convince the High Court that:

  • the claims being made against Google could be classified as torts under English law, and that either damage was sustained by the claimants in the UK or damage resulted from an act committed within the UK;
  • there is a serious issue to be tried on the merits of the claim; and
  • taking all the circumstances into account, the appropriate forum to resolve the dispute would be an English court.

The High Court accepted that the claims being made amounted to the alleged tort of misuse of private information under English law and the alleged breach of the UK Data Protection Act 1998, and that in the three cases before the Court the issues were sufficiently serious to merit trial. The court held that the most appropriate forum would be an English court for the following reasons: (1) the focus of the case would be on the damage that the UK residents claim to have suffered, such that proceedings in the U.S. would be burdensome to them, and (2) the issues of English law raised by the case are complicated and would be costly and difficult to resolve in a U.S. court.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 2 Minute Read

On April 1, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the 2024 amendment to Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, limiting damages, applies retroactively to pending cases.

Time 2 Minute Read

On March 25, 2026, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office and the UK Office of Communications released a joint statement addressing the intersection of online safety and data protection in relation to age assurance.

Time 2 Minute Read

On March 23, 2026, the UK Information Commissioner's Office released new guidance clarifying the use of the new recognized legitimate interest lawful basis for processing personal information under UK data protection law.

Time 3 Minute Read

The results are in: attorneys are filing more employment law cases in court.  Indeed, year-end reporting from legal databases like LexMachina confirm that the pace of filing new employment discrimination cases reached its highest level in 2025, surpassing 20,000 new filings nationwide.  Though overtime and minimum wage lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) have continued to decline since 2015, discrimination cases under laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act are on the rise.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Archives

Jump to Page