Search Legal Cases
Court: Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) Case No. 1429/4/12/21 Status: Closed Update: In June 2022, the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) upheld the CMA’s decision on five of Meta’s six grounds of appeal, noting it had “no hesitation” in concluding the CMA’s finding that the merger substantially
We filed an expert witness statement in a case challenging the double registration of refugees.
Seven applicants sought review from the European Court of Human Rights of the UK Investigatory Powers Tribunal’s refusal to hear their challenges to the UK intelligence services mass intercpetion practices. Their legal action was a result of PI’s campaign and support
PI intervened to emphasise the legal standards applicable to redress mechanisms available to victims of unlawful surveillance
Privacy International intervened in a landmark case brought in the UK courts by asylum seekers against mobile phone seizures and data extraction. Judgment was handed down on 25 March 2022. The High Court found that the secret and blanket policy of the UK Home Office to seize and search migrants'
We all need to understand the range of surveillance tools that police forces around the world can use to monitor and identify you if you attend a protest, and how you can better protect yourself from protest surveillance. Our partners and us have devised guides to educate people on the surveillance
On 24 September 2021, PI submitted a complaint to the UK’s data protection authority - the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) challenging the Home Office’s refusal to provide information about its meetings with tech companies around encryption.
PI supports the claim brought against TikTok in the Netherlands by the Foundation Take Back Your Privacy, which alleges that TikTok exploits the personal data of children users in violation of their privacy and data protection rights.
Demanding device sustainability through long-term software support and transparency from manufacturers.
PI, together with Article19 and EFF intervened to outline how unrestricted surveillance of communications data interferences with the right to privacy and threatens freedom of expression.