Google Loses Appeal Bid Over Suing

British consumers having the right to sue it in the UK.

A group known as Safari Users Against Google's Secret Tracking want to take legal action in the English courts over the internet giant's Apple Safari internet browser.

They accuse Google of bypassing security settings in order to track their online browsing and to target them with personalised advertisements.

Three appeal judges have dismissed Google's appeal over a High Court ruling against it and ruled claims for damages can be brought over allegations of misuse of private information.

Today's ruling was a victory for Safari Users, including editor and publisher Judith Vidal-Hall, and Robert Hann and Marc Bradshaw, who are both IT security company directors.

They say Google's ''clandestine'' tracking and collation of internet usage between summer 2011 and early 2012 led to distress and embarrassment among UK users.

They accuse Google of collecting private information without their knowledge and consent by the use of cookies'' - a small string of text saved on the user's device.

Dan Tench, a partner at law firm Olswang, which represents the group, said the landmark case decides whether British consumers actually have any right to hold Google to account in this country''.

Mr Tench said: This is the appropriate forum for this case - here in England where the consumers used the internet and where they have a right to privacy.''

The appeal judges unanimously ruled that misuse of private information was a tort - a civil wrong - for the purposes of the rules governing service out of the jurisdiction, enabling legal action to go ahead.

They also clarified the law on the meaning of damage'' in section 13 of the Data Protection Act.

Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls, and Lady Justice Sharp said in their joint judgment, with which Lord Justice McFarlane agreed: On the face of it, these claims raise serious issues which merit a trial.

They concern what is alleged to have been the secret and blanket tracking and collation of information, often of an extremely private nature... about and associated with with the claimants' internet use, and the subsequent use of that information for about nine months.

The case relates to the anxiety and distress this intrusion upon autonomy has caused.''

The appeal judges said Mr Justice Tugendhat, who heard the case in the High Court, was entitled to come to the view that it was clearly arguable'' that Article 8 (right to private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights was engaged and gave weight to allowing the claims to proceed.

The judges also said Google Inc had estimated its trial costs at £1.2 million, which seemed extremely high'' and they could be controlled by the court's management powers.

They said some of the technical issues in the case may already have been addressed by litigation against Google in the US over the Safari issue.

In August 2012 Google had agreed to pay a civil penalty of 22.5 million US dollars (£15.1 million) to settle charges, brought by the United States Federal Trade Commission that it misrepresented to users of the Safari browser that it would not place tracking cookies or serve targeted advertisements to those users.

In November 2013 it also agreed to pay 17 million US dollars (£11.4 million) to settle US state consumer-based actions brought against it by the attorneys general representing 37 states and the District of Colombia.