Liberalism and Law in Lloyd v Google - Essay Answer

Introduction

Privacy is a multidisciplinary concept that is easy to understand yet difficult to define in various contexts but forms an integral part of the personal rights of individuals in any state. It is reviewed in various aspects of sociology, philosophy, psychology, and law (Alibeigi et al., 2019). Lloyd v. Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50 is a landmark case that is also known as the Set Case in English law wherein, it was held by the Court of Appeal that an action for compensation for the breach of privacy laws can be initiated against Google for the breach of privacy of its users. It has prominent and significant implications in contemporary society. The legal case revolves around an important question of whether the alleged disregard for the privacy of its users by Google amounted to a violation of the provisions of the Data Protection Act (1998) in the United Kingdom (UK). The primary aim of the current research is to examine how the present Set Case is related to justice theories primarily focusing on the liberal justice theory, the relationship between law and morality, and how the ideas of autonomy and rights in connection to the arguments of the parties. Further, this research shall also explore the areas that highlight the idea of individual freedom and privacy in modern society with a special emphasis laid on how the case has a nexus with liberalism and the law.

Liberal Justice Theory and Lloyd v. Google

According to Wenar (2021), the liberal theory of justice is a theory that was formulated by jurists and thinkers who believed in the political ideology of liberalism. As per the concept of liberalism, law is a mode to achieve individual freedom and autonomy. According to Rawls’ theory of justice for a liberal society, justice is seen as fairness. He had constructed his theory of justice as fairness involving specific interpretations of the notion that people as citizens of a country, are free and equal and so, the society must act in a fair manner. He further argued that justice as fairness stands in supremacy over the dominant culture in the contemporary political thought of utilitarianism (Marshall, 2022). It is important to first consider how the Set Case is related to the justice theories, especially Liberal Jurisprudence Theory. As per the Liberal Justice Theory, the law must protect and safeguard individuals from any potential harm caused by others, and they must be able to seek remedy against such harm (Ekmekci and Arda, 2015).

Details of the Set Case

The present case, also called the Set Case was filed by a claimant named, Richard Lloyd who was a consumer rights activist. He sued Google on behalf of more than 4 million people who fell victim to the breach of their right to privacy by Google in the UK. The main issue of the case was whether the users of Google suffered damage as a consequence of such a breach of data. The Data Protection Act (2018), which supersedes the old Act, allows individuals to claim compensation for any damage or harm caused to them due to a violation of the right to data protection. However, it was further argued by Google that the users faced no loss or damage be it, financial or material, and thus, were not entitled to any kind of compensation. It was, however, ruled by the High Court of the UK that Lloyd could lawfully represent the affected victims as their representative claimant. The plaintiff, in this case, argued that Google had collected and used the personal data of many of its users in an unlawful manner in England and Wales and thus neglected their right to privacy (Chambers et al., 2021). However, in its argument, Google contended that the interests of society, in general, were facilitated well by allowing the data of the users to be used for commercial purposes.

Relationship Between Law and Morality

As a result, the conflict called attention to the friction caused between the rights of individuals and the welfare of society as a whole (Rawls, 1971). This friction further raises many questions concerning the relationship between law and morality. As per Christine (2019), the law in its essence, is supposed to reflect moral principles and ideologies, however, there are instances where there can be a clash between the two. In the present case, even though the actions of Google were legal, they could be seen as morally questionable making it important to review whether there should be an evolution of the contemporary laws so as to better contemplate the modern moral values. The Set Case (2021) also underlines the importance of autonomy and the rights of individuals since the affected users had lost a sense of control over their personal data due to the breach of data protection laws by Google.

Autonomy and Legal Theory

Autonomy is a concept, according to which, individuals are vested with the right to make their own decisions and control their own lives. As per legal positivists like Hart, law, and morality are two different domains that should not be converged (Marshall, 2022). The Set Case, however, depicts that law is not always morally neutral. The court, in this case, found that Google’s actions were fair, reasonable, and proportionate. This analysis suggests that law and morality are interconnected and not distinct. As per the theory of rights given by Raz, people have rights that are essential to their autonomy and it is the duty of law to protect these rights. He further believes that the content of law must be understood on the basis of social and facts and not moral principles and the law must not include commandments like ‘do what is fair’ or ‘do what is just’ (Guarino, 2021). Ronald Dworkin’s (1998) legal theory argues that individuals are vested with the right to autonomy, which means they have the right to make their own decisions without the interference of others.

Implications for Liberal Justice Theory

Furthermore, the decision holds utmost importance in its implications for the theory of liberal justice by confirming access to justice and reinforcing the idea of enabling individuals to seek redressal for the harm that is caused to them by the acts of others. Not only that but it also addresses the domain of representative claims made in similar interest on behalf of the victims. According to Harwood (2021), through this case, the Supreme Court recognized the test of “same interest” by emphasizing avoiding conflict of interests rather than establishing identical claims, which ultimately broadens the scope of justice for all in the present claim.

Impact of Brexit on Privacy Laws

As for whether the courts will apply domestic laws now that the UK is not a part of the European Union (EU) anymore, it is likely that the courts in the UK will continue to apply domestic laws however, the UK government has formulated the European Union (Withdrawal) Act (2018), through which it has adopted EU laws. Although the courts in the UK have been reluctant to hold Google responsible for the breach of privacy laws, thus, it is crucial that changes are made in the current legislation to keep pace with the changes in technology since a considerable amount of personal data of individuals is at easy disposal of large companies like Google, the protection of which is essential. The law must make sure that people are able to control the flow of their personal data to guarantee autonomy.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Set Case showcases that the privacy of an individual is of utmost importance in present-day society, especially with advancements in technology and the internet (Sagnières and Nissenbaum, 2010). It further highlights that people have a right to privacy, the encroachment of which is possible by big corporations like Google. This calls for a change in the present regime and laws with respect to the protection of the right to privacy of people in a technologically developing society. As far as the liberal theory of justice is concerned, the present case accentuates privacy as a key element of the freedom of a person and suggests that there are appropriate laws in furtherance of the same. It is evident that the Set Case addresses complicated issues connected with the liberal justice theory and the ideas of individual interest and public interest and stimulates the revolution in existing laws. It further recognizes and affirms that an individual must have access to effective legal remedies in case of infringement of their personal rights by lowering the bar for “same interest” in the context of the representative actions (Harwood, 2021). However, such representative actions shall only be allowed by courts on close scrutiny of the case (Hadwin, 2018). It is a matter of utmost importance that there is a balance created between the general interest and the public interest so that the idea of justice is facilitated in its true sense. The right to privacy is a pivotal right that guarantees freedom and autonomy to its citizens, the violation of which can lead to bizarre outcomes. It is the duty of the law to protect individuals against the violation of any such encroachments and provide them with appropriate and timely remedies.

References

Lloyd v. Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50

Data Protection Act 1998

Data Protection Act 2018

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Alibeigi, et al. (2019). Right to Privacy, A Complicated Concept to Review. SSRN

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3537968

Chambers, L., et al. (2021). Lloyd v Google: good news for data controllers? Lexology. 

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5ccc7c41-19ae-4193-aeb5-d3dd62ffa30e

Dworkin, R. (1998). Law’s empire. Oxford: Hart Publishing. https://www.filosoficas.unam.mx/~cruzparc/empire.pdf

Ekmekci, P.E. and Arda, B., 2015. Enhancing John Rawls's theory of justice to cover health and social determinants of health. Acta bioethica, 21(2), p.227.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4915381/

Guarino, N. (2021). Raz’s Exclusive Positivism and Judges’ Ability to Make Law: Where Are the Limits?. College of Arts & Sciences Department of History. https://legalresearchclub.ua.edu/blog/2021/11/23/razs-exclusive-positivism-and-judges-ability-to-make-law-where-are-the-limits/#_ftnref8

Hadwin, S., et al. (2018). Lloyd v Google – putting the brakes on English data breach litigation?. Data Protection Report. https://www.dataprotectionreport.com/2018/10/lloyd-v-google-putting-the-brakes-on-english-data-breach-litigation/

Harwood, S. (2021). Lloyd v Google: No damages without proof of damage. SH Legal.  [Accessed on: 3 May 2023]

https://www.shlegal.com/news/lloyd-v-google-no-damages-without-proof-of-damage

Marshall, J. (2022). Jurisprudence and Legal Theory. The University of London. https://www.studocu.com/en-gb/document/university-of-london/jurisprudence-and-legal-theory/university-of-london-jurisprudence-subject-guide-2021/18394254

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press. https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cngvEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT7&dq=Rawls,+J.+(1971).+A+theory+of+justice.+Harvard+University+Press&ots=c_0LDpi76Z&sig=DpH5mIhcyJB8SS6lKCgIz8vX-ZI&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Rawls%2C%20J.%20(1971).%20A%20theory%20of%20justice.%20Harvard%20University%20Press&f=false

Sagnières, L., Nissenbaum, H. (2010), Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life, Stanford. Stanford University Press, p. 279. 

http://www.revueithaque.org/fichiers/Ithaque12/Sagnieres.pdf

Sypnowich, C. (2019). Law and Ideology. Ed. Edward N. Zalta https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=law-ideology

Wenar, L. (2008) John Rawls. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. 2021. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/rawls/

You Might Also Like

Law Assignment Help Australia

5 HACKS FOR LAW ASSIGNMENT

BAC111 Introduction to Business Law Assignment Sample

Looking For Complete Assignment Sample Get It On WhatsApp