A group of Apple iPhone and iPad users will sue Google for secretly tracking their browsing habits so they can bombard them with targeted adverts.

Judith Vidal-Hall, Robert Hann and Marc Bradshaw, who all use Apple's Safari browser, today won the right for the High Court to hear their claim.

Google argued that the High Court in London did not have jurisdiction to hear the case and said it should instead be heard in California.

The claimants, known as Safari Users Against Google's Secret Tracking, accuse Google of bypassing security settings in order to track their online browsing and target them with adverts.

Today Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting in the High Court, ruled that the courts were the 'appropriate jurisdiction' to try their claims.

A group spokesman said: 'The Google argument that any trial should take place in California has not been accepted by the judge.'

They say Google's 'clandestine' tracking and collation of internet usage between summer 2011 and spring 2012 has led to distress and embarrassment among UK users.

They argued in court that Google's bid to block a trial was 'misconceived' and the company should 'answer to British justice'.

They are accusing Google of misuse of private information, breach of confidence and breaking data protection laws.

More...

The ultimate mobile for the paranoid? The 'Blackphone' that claims to be able to make your calls and texts completely secure
Will Samsung's Galaxy S5 be available in metal AND plastic (just like the iPhone) when it goes on sale in April?

Google provides services including email and search facilities to web users for free, Mr Justice Tugendhat said.

'It can do this because it collects information from the users of its services which it then processes in such a way that it can sell to suppliers what appears as space on the users' screens.

'This can be used by them for advertisements which are targeted at the apparent interests of the users of devices who access the internet', the judge said.
Privacy case: Google argued that the case should not go before the High Court and should instead be heard in California instead. They lost the battle and it will now go to trial

Privacy case: Google argued that the case should not go before the High Court and should instead be heard in California instead. They lost the battle and it will now go to trial

'What each of the claimants claims in the present case is that they have suffered acute distress and anxiety. None of them claims any financial or special damage.'

Anthony White QC, for Google, had argued the information was not in fact private.

'It is anonymous. The aggregation of such information sent to separate websites and advertising services cannot make it private information.
Court battle: The trio of internet users taking action against Google were all users of Apple's Safari broswer on iPad or iPhone

Court battle: The trio of internet users taking action against Google were all users of Apple's Safari broswer on iPad or iPhone

'One hundred times zero is zero, so one hundred pieces of non-private information cannot become private information when collected together.'

But the judge said: 'I find this a surprising submission to be made on behalf of Google Inc.

'It would not collect and collate the information unless doing so enabled it to produce something of value.

'The value it produces is the facility for targeted advertising of which the claimants complain, and which yields the spectacular revenues for which Google Inc is famous', the judge said.

'I am satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried in each of the claimants' claims for misuse of private information.'

A Google spokeswoman said: 'A case almost identical to this one was dismissed in its entirety three months ago in the US.

'We still don't think that this case meets the standards required in the UK for it to go to trial, and we'll be appealing today's ruling.'

Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch, said: 'It's absolutely right people are able to access justice in Britain when the issue concerns a company that has a significant presence here and offers services to millions of British people.

'This is an important case for privacy regulation, as it involved users making a specific choice about sharing data and being tracked that was not respected by Google.

'It is an important principle that people are able to control who collects their information and how it is used and this case has the potential to enhance consumer protection and strengthen privacy in a number of areas. It is critical that companies respect the choices we make as consumers and this case could be a significant deterrent in future.'

No date has yet been set for the full hearing.