FOLLOW US

The panel observed that Google "came very close to suggesting that a claim should only proceed if a prima facie articulation of loss could be produced." That approach would go further than the tribunal legal test requiring a claimant to set out a sufficient blueprint for trial "and act as a barrier to justice by requiring a claimant to meet an unrealistically high threshold for the articulation of their methodology."

The CAT found that the allegations made by the claimants are triable, and that the harm to the class and damage suffered by it can be quantified at trial.

The panel said it did not consider Google's points that some of the claims were time-barred, because they are "not preclusive" of a collective proceedings order being granted. The panel concluded that the issues of limitation and strike-out should be dealt with in the main trial.

"Any other course would involve, for no good reason, disrupting the process to trial," the CAT said.

Pollack said in a statement that the decision to certify is "of major importance to the victims of Google's anticompetitive conduct in ad tech.

"I look forward to working with our legal and economic advisers to deliver compensation for years during which the relevant markets did not provide a competitive outcome for the UK publishing market," he added.

Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Ad Tech Collective Action is represented by Robert O'Donoghue KC of Brick Court Chambers, Gerry Facenna KC, Julian Gregory and Nikolaus Grubeck of Monckton Chambers and Greg Adey of One Essex Court, instructed by Humphries Kerstetter LLP, Hausfeld LLP and Geradin Partners Ltd.

Google was represented by Meredith Pickford KC of Monckton Chambers, Connall Patton KC of One Essex Court and Natasha Simonsen and Warren Fitt of Blackstone Chambers, instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP.

The case is Ad Tech Collective Action LLP v. Alphabet Inc. & Others, case numbers 1572/7/7/22 and 1582/7/7/23, in the Competition Appeal Tribunal.