![]() ![]() The CAT held that the PCR’s case was not sufficiently credible because of inadequacies in the pleading of the three alleged abuses and problems with the expert methodology. This followed the Court of Appeal’s recent criticism of the CAT for having failed to lay down a pathway for the trial of the deep-sea shipping collective proceedings ( Mark McLaren v MOL EWCA Civ 1701). The CAT emphasised that when dealing with novel cases the roadmap for resolving difficult questions needs to be identified at the certification stage, not further down the line. The CAT held that the PCR had failed to meet the Pro-Sys test, observing that the test’s purpose was to minimise risks of the parties incurring unnecessary costs, the CAT’s time being wasted and the matter coming to trial in an unmanageable form. whether the proceedings could be justified in terms of cost/benefit.whether the expert methodology put forward by the PCR was sufficiently credible or plausible to establish some basis in fact for establishing loss on a class-wide basis (the ‘Pro-sys' test) and.In its decision, the CAT considered two key issues: The CAT handed down its judgment after a three-day hearing and less than three weeks’ deliberation. implementing terms and conditions that were complex, far-reaching, opaque, misleading and imposed on a “take it or leave it” basis (the ‘other unfair trading conditions’).charging Facebook users an unfair price for access to the platform, in the form of personal data that Meta collected rather than a monetary amount and.imposing requirements on Facebook users to give Meta permission to collect, share and otherwise process their personal data and view targeted advertising on Facebook (the ‘unfair data requirement’).Gormsen alleged that, from 2016 to 2019, Meta abused its dominant position in the market for social media services by: In February 2022, Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen (the PCR) applied to bring opt-out collective proceedings (worth an alleged £2.2 billion, or around £50 per class member) against three Meta entities, on behalf of 45 million UK Facebook users. Instead, PCRs still have significant leeway to go back to the drawing board and reformulate elements of their claims. While it is encouraging for defendants that the CAT is applying scrutiny to claims like this, it is also clear that the tribunal is reluctant to reject these certification applications on their first try. The PCR’s claim against Meta is a bold attempt to bring a competition class action that would more traditionally have been framed as a data privacy or consumer protection claim. ![]() The PCR now has six months while the proceedings are stayed to “have another go” at producing a “new and better blueprint” for the effective trial of the proceedings. ![]() The tribunal found significant issues with the PCR’s expert evidence and held that it required a “root-and-branch re-evaluation”. The United Kingdom’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has issued a judgment without approving or rejecting the proposed class representative (PCR)’s application for a collective proceedings order against Meta. Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen v Meta Platforms, Inc and Others ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |