Domnul Lloyd a introdus o acțiune colectivă în numele a 4,4 milioane de persoane la Curtea Supremă din Regatul Unit împotriva Google, pretinzând faptul că persoanele au pierdut controlul asupra datelor personale atunci când Google a exploatat istoricul de navigare utilizând module cookies ascunse și fără a fi obținut în prealabil consimțământul persoanelor.
Instanța din apel a hotărât că o persoană trebuie să fie despăgubită pentru „pierderea controlului” asupra datelor cu caracter personal, chiar în lipsa unui prejudiciu material sau moral[1]. Argumentația instanței a fost următoarea: Dacă Google folosește datele cu caracter personal pentru profit, atunci acele date au valoare pentru persoana de la care provin acestea. Astfel, în viziunea instanței, având în vedere că datele sunt monetizate, ar trebui tratate din punct de vedere juridic ca bunuri, iar lipsa controlului asupra datelor private ca bunuri vor da automat persoanei dreptul la despăgubire.[2]
[1] England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Richard Lloyd împotriva Google LLC, par. 70, disponibilă aici, link accesat 03.08.2020
„ (…) For the reasons, I have given, I would conclude that damages are in principle capable of being awarded for loss of control of data under article 23 and section 13, even if there is no pecuniary loss and no distress. The words in section 13 „[an] individual who suffers damage by reason of [a breach] is entitled to compensation” justify such an interpretation, when read in the context of the Directive and of article 8 of the Convention and article 8 of the Charter, and having regard to the decision in Gulati. Only by construing the legislation in this way can individuals be provided with an effective remedy for the infringement of such rights. (…)”
[2] England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Richard Lloyd împotriva Google LLC, par. 46-47, disponibilă aici, link accesat 03.08.2020
„(…) The first question that arises is whether control over data is an asset that has value. That question again should, in this context, be answered as a matter of EU law. In Your Response Limited v. Datateam Business Media Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 281, this court held that, as a matter of English law, an electronic database was not a form of property capable of possession and that, therefore, it could not be subject to a possessory lien. That question may in due course need to be revisited, but it does not, in my judgment affect the answer to the relevant question for current purposes. Even if data is not technically regarded as property in English law, its protection under EU law is clear. It is also clear that a person’s BGI has economic value: for example, it can be sold. It is commonplace for EU citizens to obtain free wi-fi at an airport in exchange for providing their personal data. If they decline to do so, they have to pay for their wi-fi usage. The underlying reality of this case is that Google was able to sell BGI collected from numerous individuals to advertisers who wished to target them with their advertising. That confirms that such data, and consent to its use, has an economic value. (…)
(…) Accordingly, in my judgment, a person’s control over data or over their BGI does have a value, so that the loss of that control must also have a value.”
Te-ar putea interesa și:
[Conținutul prezentului articol nu reprezintă o consultație juridică în temeiul Legii nr. 51/1995 privind organizarea și exercitarea profesiei de avocat, iar site-ul nu își asumă răspunderea pentru conținutul publicat de autori, editori și colaboratori.]
