header-logo header-logo

06 November 2024
Issue: 8093 / Categories: Legal News , Class actions
printer mail-detail

Meta mega-claim clears hurdle

Meta has failed in its attempt to stop a class action against it for allegedly abusing its dominant position by extracting commercially valuable data from users without offering payment

The claim, potentially worth more than £2bn, centres on Meta’s practice of collecting data from its users’ activities on platforms other than Facebook, as a take-it-or-leave-it condition for using Facebook. It alleges this was an unfair trading condition, and that Meta combined this off-Facebook and on-Facebook data to generate valuable targeted advertising revenue.

In February, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) certified the claim on an opt-out basis (after declining an earlier version of the claim), holding it was ‘clearly’ arguable. It refused Meta’s application to appeal. Meta then applied to appeal at the Court of Appeal.

Meta argued the CAT erred or at least arguably erred in its findings with regard to the methodology chosen by class representative Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen, a legal academic, to establish unfair pricing, and as to the logic of the way in which the causal link was pleaded.

Lords Justice Green and Lewis refused Meta permission to appeal, handing down their judgment this week, in Meta Platforms and others v Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen [2024] EWCA Civ 1322.

Giving the lead judgment, Green LJ said ‘the use of data as a proxy for monetary payment is a rapidly increasing phenomenon of modern digital life and as such it is generating a range of new legal issues’.

Green LJ said ‘there is nothing in the approach being mooted by [Lovdahl Gormsen] which is outwith normal methodologies.

‘But even if there is novelty in the issues arising it must be for the CAT to delve into such novelties to form a view, and it is not for this Court to seek to cut off such analysis before it has even been embarked upon’. 

Issue: 8093 / Categories: Legal News , Class actions
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll