Comentário do especialista Flavio Fujita
Na segunda-feira a Alta Corte de Justiça Britânica decidiu o caso Lloyd v Google, que tratou da violação pelo “Safari Workaround” (coletas por cookies sem consentimento no iOS).
Segundo a decisão, danos (materiais ou morais) devem ser comprovados para serem indenizados, e uma parte ou órgão não poderia representar todos os titulares atingidos, justamente por conta disso.
“I do not believe that the authorities show that a person whose information has been acquired or used without consent invariably suffers compensable harm, either by virtue of the wrong itself, or the interference with autonomy that it involves… In short, the question of whether or not damage has been sustained by an individual as a result of the non-consensual use of personal data about them must depend on the facts of the case.”
“It would not be unfair to describe this as officious litigation, embarked upon on behalf of individuals who have not authorised it, and have shown no interest in seeking any remedy for, or even complaining about, the alleged breaches…. the Representative Claimant should not be permitted to consume substantial resources in the pursuit of litigation on behalf of others who have little to gain from it, and have not authorised the pursuit of the claim, nor indicated any concern about the matters to be litigated”
O caso precede o GDPR (foi baseado no DPA de 1998), mas os princípios são os mesmos.