Dear Valued Visitor,

We have noticed that you are using an ad blocker software.

Although advertisements on the web pages may degrade your experience, our business certainly depends on them and we can only keep providing you high-quality research based articles as long as we can display ads on our pages.

To view this article, you can disable your ad blocker and refresh this page or simply login.

We only allow registered users to use ad blockers. You can sign up for free by clicking here or you can login if you are already a member.

A Tad Arrogant? Google Inc (GOOG): UK Privacy Laws Don’t Apply

Page 1 of 2

Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOG) is facing a landmark group legal action by furious Brits over the way it sneakily circumvented settings on the iPhone to track their web usage. Google has told British consumers taking legal action against it for privacy breaches that it does not have to answer to the English courts and that UK privacy laws don’t apply. The Tech giant has already come under fire for failing to pay tax in the UK, during his last visit to the UK, its CEO had to adopt a defensive stance regarding the tax question and now critics are saying the latest row is further evidence of Google making up the rules to suit itself.

Legal documents filed by the company in response to a claim by three people backed by the campaign group, Safari Users Against Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOG)’s Secret Tracking, show that Google will contest the right of Safari users in the UK to bring a case in the country they live in and where they use Google’s service. The search giant has dismissed the Safari claims as not serious, saying that the browsing habits of internet users are not protected as personal information, even when they potentially concern their physical health or sexuality.

Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOG)

Judith Vidal-Hall, one of the claimants, is appalled by this:

“Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOG)’s position on the law is the same as its position on tax: they will only play or pay on their home turf.  What are they suggesting- that they will force Apple users whose privacy was violated to pay to travel to California to take action when they offer a service in this country on a .co.uk site?  This matches their attitude to consumer privacy.  They don’t respect it and they don’t consider themselves to be answerable to our laws on it.”

Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOG) refused to accept service of the lawsuit in the UK, instead forcing the victims to serve on the company in California. Their claim is based on Google’s admission that tracking cookies were installed on the computers and mobile devices of people using Apple’s Safari internet browser even when they had expressly chosen to block them.  These cookies allowed Google to secretly track the browsing activities of millions of Safari users, without their knowledge, and to collate and use that data.

The practice was only stopped when a law student and security researcher noticed Google’s activity and published an exposé in the United States.  Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOG) paid a record $22.5million settlement to the US Federal Trade Commission to settle charges. According to a Telegraph article written by Christopher Williams:

“Google was last year found to have circumvented privacy settings in the iPhone web browser software, Safari, by a researcher at Stanford University in California. By default, Apple prevents websites from installing small text files called cookies that allow advertising companies such as Google to track consumers across the web. Google, however, wrote software to work around Apple’s settings”.

Apparently, UK citizens are not the first to be told by global tech giants that they cannot sue them in their own jurisdiction. The same issue was the main subject of a recent academic paper written by Christopher Parsons at the University of Victoria in Canada  where a number of cases have been brought by Canadian authorities against social network companies in the US.

Marc Bradshaw, another claimant, believes this latest development is just another ruse by Google to avoid responsibility for its actions: “It seems to us absurd to suggest that consumers can’t bring a claim against a company which is operating in the UK and is even constructing a $1 billion headquarters in London. “If consumers can’t bring a civil claim against a company in a country where it operates, the only way of ensuring it behaves is by having a robust regulator.

Page 1 of 2
Loading Comments...