Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 15 MAY 2015

Global Data & Privacy Update - 14 May 2015

Clyde & Co
Explore more from Clyde & Co

Following the landmark judgment earlier in 2015, Google has applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

GlobalPrivacy
Margaret Tofalides
Margaret Tofalides
Author LinkedIn connections

Vidal-Hall v Google in the Supreme Court

Following the landmark judgment earlier in 2015, Google has applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. The April judgment decided that an individual is entitled to damages for distress without being required to show loss and may open the floodgates to compensation claims following data breaches. The Supreme Court's judgment on the application is awaited.

Google victory in first 'right to be forgotten case'

Finland's Data Protection Ombudsman has ruled this week that Google was not obliged to remove search results relating to the complainant. He argued that information about his previous debt collection business is no longer relevant but the Ombudsman rejected his argument as he is still involved in such activities. The request came following 2014's landmark 'right to be forgotten' ruling which established that individuals can ask search engines to remove irrelevant, misleading or dated information about them.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Ten AI Giants, One Regulator And A Lesson For Everyone Else: What The ICO’s Foundation Model Report Really Tells Us

The UK's Information Commissioner's Office has completed its supervision of major AI foundation model developers, revealing significant gaps in data protection practices and setting new expectations for legitimate interests assessments, transparency, and special category data handling. The regulator has now turned its attention to agentic AI systems, warning that autonomy is not an excuse for poor compliance and launching a call for evidence that will shape future regulatory guidance.
United KingdomPrivacy
Burges Salmon LLP
Burges Salmon LLP
Article

To Fine Or Not To Fine: EDPB Confirms Default Position In GDPR Enforcement Should Be To Fine

The European Data Protection Board has published draft guidelines proposing a fundamental shift in GDPR enforcement: a presumption that fines should be imposed for non-minor infringements, with a deliberately low bar for establishing negligence. Organizations will need to demonstrate robust compliance programs and documented decision-making to potentially avoid penalties, as regulators move from asking "should we fine?" to "can we justify not fining?"
GlobalPrivacy
Crowell & Moring LLP
Crowell & Moring LLP
Article

ICO Cookie Crackdown 2.0: The ICO’s New Storage And Access Technologies Guidance

The UK Information Commissioner's Office has finalized its guidance on storage and access technologies, expanding compliance requirements beyond traditional cookies to include tracking pixels, device fingerprinting, and web storage. Organizations must now navigate stricter consent standards and three new narrow exceptions introduced by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, while facing significantly increased enforcement penalties of up to £17.5 million or 4% of annual worldwide turnover.
United KingdomPrivacy
ZwillGen
ZwillGen
Article

Private CCTV, Ring Doorbells And Police Investigations: Where Does UK GDPR Draw The Line?

Domestic surveillance technology has evolved from simple security cameras to sophisticated smart systems that may inadvertently create legal obligations for homeowners. When does a Ring doorbell or CCTV system transform an ordinary citizen into a data controller subject to UK GDPR, and what are the implications of millions of private cameras forming an unregulated surveillance network?
United KingdomPrivacy
HCR Law
HCR Law
Article

European Commission Press Release: EU AI Act Transparency Enforcement Starts This Sunday! Do You Know Who Your Chatbots Are? We Break Down The Commission’s Guidelines On Transparency Below

The European Commission has announced that EU AI Act transparency rules take effect August 2, 2026, requiring chatbots to identify themselves, deepfakes to be labeled, and AI-generated content to be marked. Organizations must assess whether their AI systems trigger disclosure, labeling, or content-marking requirements, with limited exceptions and penalties reaching €15 million or 3% of global turnover for noncompliance.
GlobalPrivacy
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Seyfarth Shaw LLP