The case is likely to draw interest from recyclers of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), as concern over data on devices is often cited as a reason for people hoarding old electricals at home.
In a remote ruling published on 31 January, Justice Lewis said the case must be heard via the so-called ‘small claims track’ at the county court.
Currys told letsrecycle.com that it was unable to comment on the case due to “ongoing proceedings”.
Repair
In the agreed arguments of Justice Lewis’s decision, it is said that, in 2020, William Stadler returned a Smart TV he purchased in 2016 to Currys for repair.
Currys’ technical staff determined that any repair of the television would be “disproportionately costly” and offered to write off the unit and compensate Mr Stadler with a voucher. He accepted and used the voucher to buy a new television.
Mr Stadler’s original Smart TV was sold on to a third party with the data not wiped, and someone used his Amazon Prime account to spend £3.49 on a film.
Mr Stadler brought a claim for £5,000 in damages against Currys Group Ltd before the High Court, on the basis that data protection laws were breached and that he suffered “psychological distress, anxiety, loss, and damage”, among other reasons.
Currys applied to have Mr Stadler’s case dismissed, for reasons including that the electrical retailer had already provided him with compensation in the form of a £5 reimbursement and a £200 voucher, and that the only damage was the “distress” purportedly caused to the claimant during the short period in which he realised his accounts had not been logged out.
On 31 January, Justice Lewis dismissed all Mr Stadler’s claims apart from the one relating to data protection.
He then transferred the case to the county court in Hastings, which he said was “local” to Mr Stadler, ruling that the matter should be allocated to the small claims track.
‘A reasonable prospect of success’
Justice Lewis said: “Firstly, further factual information is needed to evaluate the extent of the defendant’s duties to the claimant under data protection legislation, in particular in respect of what was said between the parties when the device was handed over, and when it was agreed it would be scrapped, and what terms and conditions applied to the repair and subsequent disposal.
I consider that the data protection claim has a reasonable prospect of success
- Justice Lewis
“Secondly, I consider that the data protection claim has a reasonable prospect of success.
“On the basis of the claimant’s account of events, it seems that the defendant would or should have been aware that there was personal data on the device, and it is certainly arguable that it had duties as a data controller, particularly if at any point it became the owner of the Smart TV.”
Smart TV
According to court documents, the television allowed Mr Stadler to access third party apps, one of which was Amazon Prime.
The documents said Currys did not ask Mr Stadler to clear or remove any of the apps on the television. He was told to give the device to Currys together with the remote and power cable.
Mr Stadler did not log out of his Amazon app or any other apps before leaving the television with Currys.
Currys then sold the Smart TV to a third-party company, without performing a factory reset or data wipe.
On or around 31 December 2020, someone bought a film for £3.49 using the Mr Stadler’s Amazon account through the TV.
On 2 January 2021, Currys gave Mr Stadler £5 for the cost of the Amazon purchase. On 4 January 2021, Currys contacted the Mr Stadler again to make sure that he had changed his passwords for Amazon and any other apps, and the claimant confirmed that he had.
On 11 January 2021, Currys gave Mr Stadler a £200 shopping voucher as “a gesture of goodwill”.
Subscribe for free