Google iPhone data privacy case blocked by High Court
A legal case in which Google has given our name was installed by the group, led by former director Richard Load.
He paid for people and handsets pursued by Google for several months in 2011 and 2012.
Mr Load said he was “disappointed” by the government and appealed to the group, but Google said it was “happy” and it was believed that the case was “without merit”.
It was believed that the UK had to be the first widely used legal act.
Mr. Justice Waughbe monitored the trial and explained that it was stopped because people who were impressed in this claim did not support the modern facts by campaign groups.
Another reason to stop it, he said, was allegedly unsatisfied with counting the number of iPhone users affected by privacy violations.
Mr Load said in a statement: “Today’s decision is very disappointed and despite being misused by personal data, millions of people have to look for compensation and compensation without any practical reason.”
He further added that 20,000 people will be allowed to appeal against the campaign’s signature.
In response to court order, Google said: “” Privacy and security of our users are very important for us. This claim is without merit, and we are happy that the court has rejected it. ”
By verifying your complaint, we claimed that cookies were used by Google to prevent such surveillance from tracking people and setting up on Apple’s Safari browser.
Ads were sold based on personal information collected by Google cookies.
The Safari aspect visit was used by Google on many different devices, but Britain’s case was on the iPhone users. The group has hoped to win £ 1bn ($ 1.3bn) in compensation for the affected users.
The first phase of the legal case was to recognize the UK departments that this group is a valid complaint.
Prior to the court appearance, Google argued that the type of action brought by Mr. Load was inaccessible and could not be allowed to advance.
Google has paid $ 39.5 million in the United States to resolve the first claim against it on collective data collection claims.