Google: £25bn claim
Two lawyers – a retired deputy High Court judge and a former Crown prosecutor – are fronting multi-billion-pound opt-out collective actions against tech giants Microsoft and Google.
Google is facing a £25bn opt-out class action brought by UK advertisers alleging that it abused its dominant position in online search advertising.
As intimated last November, the class representative is Roger Kaye KC, a retired deputy High Court judge who practises as a mediator and arbitrator from Enterprise Chambers in London.
Mr Kaye said: “This case marks a significant step in re-establishing a fair and competitive landscape for all advertisers. Monopolising the advertising space to the point of abuse cannot continue.”
His solicitors, KP Law, said Google’s “unlawful conduct exploited between 500,000 and 1.5m UK advertisers, resulting in ‘excessive and unfair prices’ for search advertising”.
It is alleged that Google’s agreements with device manufacturers to make it the default search option pushed up prices even further.
Mr Kaye is seeking compensation for all UK advertisers who paid Google more, either directly or through intermediaries, for search advertising from 1 January 2011 to the date of filing the claim at the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
KP Law said that, while there have been several previous UK collective actions against Google and its parent company, Alphabet, Mr Kaye’s application was the first to include a standalone claim seeking damages for ‘abusive exploitative behaviour’.
Duncan Hedar, head of KP Law’s competition department, added: “In contrast to previous cases filed in the UK, Mr Kaye KC seeks to take the action one step further by rightly compensating the vast number of businesses who’ve had to suffer the imposition of Google’s abuse of power.”
Meanwhile, Alexander Wolfson worked at the Crown Prosecution Service for over 16 years before returning in 2023 to private practice at 1 High Pavement chambers in Nottingham, where he acts for prosecution and defence.
He is acting as proposed class representative on behalf of all UK-domiciled natural and legal persons (including public bodies) that purchased licences for certain specified Microsoft software products, including Microsoft Office and Windows.
Represented by London litigation firm Stewarts, he alleges that Microsoft “abused its market dominance and engaged in conduct that restricted competition to its new licences from pre-owned licences for Microsoft products. That conduct allegedly affected and inflated the prices of both new and pre-owned licences.
Mr Wolfson said: “Microsoft’s actions have had a significant and far-reaching impact on UK consumers, businesses and public bodies.
“This claim seeks to hold Microsoft to account and to secure compensation for the many affected members of the class. With billions of pounds potentially at stake, this case is about ensuring fairness in the digital marketplace and ensuring even the largest tech companies play by the rules.”
Kate Pollock, head of competition litigation at Stewarts, added: “We believe that Microsoft abused its market dominance by imposing restrictive licensing practices that effectively shut down competition and inflated prices.”
The claim is being funded by Harbour. Ellora MacPherson, managing director and chief investment officer at Harbour, commented: “This action is likely to be one of the largest the UK has seen and is an example of how big corporate entities can be held to account.”
Mr Wolfson is supported by an advisory panel whose members include former Conservative justice minister Lord Bellamy KC and former Court of Appeal judge Sir Christopher Floyd, who is now a member of 11 South Square.
The move to having senior lawyers front opt-out action may increase in the wake of the CAT decision earlier this year to refuse to certify a case because the proposed class representative – a legal academic – was “too reliant” on, and therefore insufficiently independent from, her solicitors.
Leave a Comment