1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. UK.LEGAL.MODERATED

  • Fresh GDPR ruling says even 'minor anxiety' could mean payouts for EU f

    From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 4 17:37:55 2023
    https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/04/gdpr_ecj_judgement/

    A major decision on GDPR compensation rights includes what looks like a
    nasty surprise for many businesses: there is no threshold that non-
    material damage needs to pass before data subjects can make a claim.

    (contd)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Handsome Jack@21:1/5 to jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com on Fri May 5 08:41:51 2023
    On Thu, 4 May 2023 17:37:55 -0000 (UTC)
    Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

    https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/04/gdpr_ecj_judgement/

    A major decision on GDPR compensation rights includes what looks like
    a nasty surprise for many businesses: there is no threshold that non- material damage needs to pass before data subjects can make a claim.

    (contd)

    "Finally, Church noted the EU and UK would "part ways" on this issue
    given the Supreme Court's indication in Lloyd v Google, a British
    action over the Safari Workaround ad-tracking cookie, which Google
    disabled when it was discovered in 2012. In that case, a 2021 judgement
    found that "claims under UK law must reach a threshold of seriousness
    to be eligible for compensation."

    Moreover, the UK is enacting its own legislation to replace the GDPR,
    and the ECHR judgement will not apply to us.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roland Perry@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 5 10:19:04 2023
    In message <20230505084151.457bc053@rogan-550-103na>, at 08:41:51 on
    Fri, 5 May 2023, Handsome Jack <nobody@nowhere.org> remarked:
    On Thu, 4 May 2023 17:37:55 -0000 (UTC)
    Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

    https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/04/gdpr_ecj_judgement/

    A major decision on GDPR compensation rights includes what looks like
    a nasty surprise for many businesses: there is no threshold that non-
    material damage needs to pass before data subjects can make a claim.

    Make a claim, or make what might be a successful claim?

    (contd)

    "Finally, Church noted the EU and UK would "part ways" on this issue
    given the Supreme Court's indication in Lloyd v Google, a British
    action over the Safari Workaround ad-tracking cookie, which Google
    disabled when it was discovered in 2012. In that case, a 2021 judgement
    found that "claims under UK law must reach a threshold of seriousness
    to be eligible for compensation."

    Moreover, the UK is enacting its own legislation to replace the GDPR,

    That's bad news, unless it's stricter than GDPR of course, because a
    lighter touch will hamper the UK doing business in r27.

    and the ECHR judgement will not apply to us.

    Good luck with that.
    --
    Roland Perry

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Graham Truesdale@21:1/5 to Handsome Jack on Fri May 5 10:59:08 2023
    On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 9:22:33 AM UTC+1, Handsome Jack wrote:
    On Thu, 4 May 2023 17:37:55 -0000 (UTC)
    Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

    https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/04/gdpr_ecj_judgement/

    A major decision on GDPR compensation rights includes what looks like
    a nasty surprise for many businesses: there is no threshold that non- material damage needs to pass before data subjects can make a claim.

    (contd)

    "Finally, Church noted the EU and UK would "part ways" on this issue
    given the Supreme Court's indication in Lloyd v Google, a British
    action over the Safari Workaround ad-tracking cookie, which Google
    disabled when it was discovered in 2012. In that case, a 2021 judgement
    found that "claims under UK law must reach a threshold of seriousness
    to be eligible for compensation."

    Moreover, the UK is enacting its own legislation to replace the GDPR,
    and the ECHR

    ITYM ECJ

    judgement will not apply to us.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From notyalckram@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Handsome Jack on Sat May 6 12:12:03 2023
    On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 09:22:33 UTC+1, Handsome Jack wrote:
    On Thu, 4 May 2023 17:37:55 -0000 (UTC)
    Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

    https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/04/gdpr_ecj_judgement/

    A major decision on GDPR compensation rights includes what looks like
    a nasty surprise for many businesses: there is no threshold that non- material damage needs to pass before data subjects can make a claim.

    (contd)

    "Finally, Church noted the EU and UK would "part ways" on this issue
    given the Supreme Court's indication in Lloyd v Google, a British
    action over the Safari Workaround ad-tracking cookie, which Google
    disabled when it was discovered in 2012. In that case, a 2021 judgement
    found that "claims under UK law must reach a threshold of seriousness
    to be eligible for compensation."

    Moreover, the UK is enacting its own legislation to replace the GDPR,
    and the ECHR judgement will not apply to us.

    It would be like an historic civil claim for trespass. The [recommended] response to vexed landowners was to offer them an old sixpence (maybe 50p today) and if they ever got to court they would have to pay their own costs [and court fees] if awarded
    less.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nothanks@aolbin.com@21:1/5 to notya...@gmail.com on Sat May 6 20:23:01 2023
    On 06/05/2023 20:12, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
    ... snipped
    It would be like an historic civil claim for trespass. The [recommended] response to vexed landowners was to offer them an old sixpence (maybe 50p today) and if they ever got to court they would have to pay their own costs [and court fees] if awarded
    less.
    Could you expand on that, please

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jon Ribbens@21:1/5 to nothanks@aolbin.com on Sat May 6 20:13:46 2023
    On 2023-05-06, nothanks@aolbin.com <nothanks@aolbin.com> wrote:
    On 06/05/2023 20:12, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
    ... snipped
    It would be like an historic civil claim for trespass. The
    [recommended] response to vexed landowners was to offer them an old
    sixpence (maybe 50p today) and if they ever got to court they would
    have to pay their own costs [and court fees] if awarded less.

    Could you expand on that, please

    You can sue for trespass if someone was on your land without permission
    or legal right to be there, but if they didn't actually cause any damage
    or other problem then the damages you would win would be absolutely
    nominal at most.

    So if the trespasser offers to pay, say, £1, then when the court finds
    in favour of the landowner and awards them £1 nominal damages, the
    trespasser had already offered this amount and therefore the landowner
    will likely be liable for all the costs of the case, including the
    trespasser's legal fees.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)