Home Office announces British citizenship application fee waiver for minors who can’t afford it following legal battle

By Xinru Jia

A person officially becomes a British Citizen when they apply to the Home Office and are able to show they are entitled to British Citizenship. This is achieved by providing evidence that they fulfil certain sections of the British Nationality Act 1981.

Most applications to the Home Office have a fee. Typically, applications for registration as a British citizen cost around £1012, which is now five times the European average for application fees! It is also the same fee for children to apply. Many families face unaffordable fees, and many more children who already meet strict eligibility criteria are barred from applying altogether.

The high fees that children or their parents have to pay to obtain British citizenship have been challenged for years. Children who are entitled to register as UK citizens but may be prevented by high costs or lack of access to legal advice may lose their rights and benefits. For some families, parents must work hard or even borrow money to pay the fees. In families with multiple children, parents may even have to choose which of their children can register as British and which cannot.

Life is tough for kids who can’t register as British. They have to pay extra tuition as international students at school, they don’t have access to student loans, they don’t have civic rights like voting, and so on. On the other hand, living in the UK without British citizenship also makes them feel “alienated, sub-optimal and not fully integrated into the cultural and social fabric of the UK,” as one High Court judge put it. Following the case of R (Project for the Registration of Children As British Citizens & Anor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWCA Civ 193, the situation has now been changed.

R (Project for the Registration of Children As British Citizens & Anor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021]

The first claimant, O, was born in the United Kingdom in July 2007, attends school, and has never left the UK. She has Nigerian citizenship, but since turning 10 she has satisfied the requirements to apply for registration as a British citizen under section 1(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981. O applied to be registered as a British citizen on 15 December 2017 but was unable to afford the full amount of the fee, which was £973 at that time. It was not disputed that many children and their families cannot afford the fee charged when an applicant is a child.

As the full fee was not paid, the Secretary of State for the Home Department refused to process O’s application. O was joined in her challenge by The Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, which focuses directly on right to British citizenship for young adults and children. The Immigration Act 2014 empowers the Secretary of State to set the fees for applications to obtain British citizenship in subordinate legislation, having regard only to the matters listed in section 68(9) of the 2014 Act. Those matters include not only the cost of processing the application but also the benefits that are likely to accrue from obtaining British citizenship and the costs of exercising other functions in relation to immigration and nationality.

The current level of the fee produces a substantial surplus, over the administrative cost of processing an application to be applied, to subsidize other parts of the immigration and nationality system. Lord Hodge then turns to the appellants’ submissions. He notes that the appeal is not concerned with fundamental or constitutional common law rights, nor are any Convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 engaged. The special rules of construction that are applicable when the principle of legality is infringed or the constitutional right of access to the courts is intruded upon therefore do not apply.

The appellants’ argument based on the constitutional right of access to the courts, therefore, has no application to the present case. The Supreme Court rejected that argument and ruled: “The appropriateness of imposing the fee on children who apply for British citizenship under section 1(4) of the 1981 Act is a question of policy which is for political determination. It is not a matter for judges for whom the question is the much narrower one of whether Parliament has authorised the Secretary of State to set the impugned fee at the level which it has been set.”

Fee for registering children as British citizens is unlawful

Upholding an earlier High Court decision, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that the Home Office’s £1,012 fee for registering children as British citizens is unlawful. The challenge succeeded on the ground that the Secretary of State failed to discharge her duty under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when setting the fee. This is a massive win for the claimant ‘O’, for the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens (PRCBC), and for their legal teams. The Court of Appeal certainly agrees that it is not disputed by anyone, least of all by the Secretary of State, that British citizenship is a status of importance to those that hold it and that the entitlement to be registered as a British citizen is likewise a right of importance. (Lord Justice David Richards, paragraph 32.)

After the legal challenge by the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens (PRCBC), the government recognized that the current £1012 child citizenship fee can often be unaffordable and needed to be reviewed. The Home Office has since published a new policy that allows for anyone under the age of 18 who is eligible to register for British citizenship to have their application fee waived if they cannot afford it, which includes:

Children applying to be registered as UK citizens are exempt from paying fees if the child and their parents or guardians can demonstrate that they cannot afford the fees
Free for children in the care of local authorities
Apply for a fee waiver for children registered outside the UK as UK citizens and in a situation similar to the care of a local authority
Relevant waivers of fees for citizenship ceremonies or citizenship oaths and administration of oaths

To qualify for the fee waiver, the child who is applying for registration – and their parents – must prove that ‘they do not have sufficient funds at their disposal to pay the required fee after meeting their essential living needs, and continuing to meet any other child’s essential needs, such as housing and food‘. This means that in order to pass the ‘affordability test’ the person who is applying (and those who support them financially) must be unable to pay the fee if they are also meant to be able to pay for essential needs. This includes things like housing, food, clothing, medication, and cleaning products. You must then prove this to the Home Office with clear and compelling evidence.

When considering a fee waiver application, the Home Office will consider things like income, savings in a bank or building society account, or even financial support that you might receive from a charity or NGO. If the Home Office is satisfied that the evidence you provide shows that you would not be able to afford the application fee whilst also meeting your other needs, the fee waiver will be granted. There is no fee waiver for citizenship applications made by adults.

This guidance applies to the following types of applications:

Form MN1: Registration of children under the age of 18
Form S2 and S3: Registration as a British citizen if you are a stateless person
Form T: Registration as a British citizen if you were born in the UK on or after 1 January 1983 and lived here until you were 10 years old
Form B(OS): Registration as a British citizen if you are a British Overseas citizen, British subject, British protected person, or British National (Overseas) and have no other citizenship or nationality
Form B(OTA): Registration as a British citizen if you are a British Overseas Territories citizen, a British Overseas citizen, a British protected person, a British subject or a British National (Overseas)
Form EM: Registration as a British Citizen through residence in Hong Kong
before 1997

Further comments

In principle, this is an important and welcomed response to the long-standing challenge of citizenship registration fees. Nonetheless, there is a need to examine the policy more closely and monitor its application in practice to assess its effectiveness in enabling children who cannot afford it to exercise British citizenship.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Lisa’s Law celebrates 10-year anniversary!

Lisa’s Law is now 10 years old! After starting with a mere desk in an office in Elephant and Castle, London, in 2012, Lisa’s Law has grown from strength to strength. Fast forward to 2022, as we celebrate our 10-year anniversary, and the company now numbers almost 50 employees and has three London offices.

To celebrate the 10-year anniversary of Lisa’s Law, we hosted a social event last month at a local restaurant in the area with all of our staff. It was fantastic for everyone to be able to get together, enjoy some food, a few drinks (and a few more!) and be able to catch up outside of work.

Led by the vision and drive of our founder and Managing Director, Chuanli Ding, Lisa’s Law couldn’t have got to where it is today without the hard work of all the staff who have contributed over the years, as well as the trust put in us by our loyal clients. Our promise to clients has always been “you instruct, we act”, and our target is to always provide good client service with a competitive price. We pride ourselves on our ability to provide swift solutions to any legal problems or enquiries clients have.

As part of our anniversary celebrations, we also hosted a competition to give back to our loyal customers and followers, with prizes worth £2000 overall. This included three prizes for each of our social media platforms including Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, WeChat and LittleRedBook.

Vouchers chosen by the competition winners included those from Amazon, iTunes and Love2Shop. It was great to see some of the comments and feedback regarding the service we had provided and about our blogs and social media, which aims to keep our followers up to date on the latest developments across our legal practise areas. We look forward to hosting further competitions in the future.

Some of the lovely comments we had from entrants to the competition included the following:

I am learning everyday from your posts and been teaching most of the laws I learnt to my kids. You are the most educating page I have been able to come across. Please continue your good works.
I love your updates. Verified and helpful. Your services are awesome. My friend who add an appointment year ago confirms that. Keep doing your great job. Happy anniversary
Good customer service, trustworthy and reliable. @lisaslawsolicitors has been provided quality service. Happy anniversary
Has to be the fact, your social media keeps relevant to moving times, policies and bills. Good to know where to come to find that.

We look forward to continuing to grow and progress as a company. Let’s see what the next ten years brings! Thanks once again to all of our clients who have helped us get to where we are today.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Sir Mo Farah’s revelation sheds a light on the dark world of human trafficking

It was one of the major talking points of the week. The British icon and most successful track distance runner of all time, Sir Mo Farah, revealed this week that the story he had told the world was, in fact, not true.

Mo Farah (as he is now known), was born as Hussein Abdi Kahin in Somaliland. After losing his father at a young age and being sent by his mother to nearby Djibouti, he was then illegally trafficked to the UK at the age of nine under the name Mohammed Farah and forced to work as a domestic servant. He had originally told the world that he had left Somalia aged eight to join his father. In reality, his father was killed in a civil war in Somaliland.

His PE teacher subsequently rescued him from his domestic servitude situation and helped him to apply for British citizenship under the name Mohammed Farah. Farah would go on to be an icon of British sport, a role model for young runners, and a knight. However it wasn’t until July 2022 that his true story was revealed.

The revelation comes during a time when the UK debate over immigration is highly fractious. The Rwanda policy (which we talked in about recent articles (see here)) has been delayed by the courts but is likely to continue given that it is supported by all of the Conservative leadership hopefuls. Whether Farah’s story has a lasting impact on the immigration debate remains to be seen.

But what does Farah’s case tell us about human trafficking in the UK, and would it have been quite so easy for someone like him to gain citizenship today? Keep reading to find out.

What can we learn about this case from a legal perspective?

Firstly, it’s important to point out that the Home Office have made it clear that they won’t be taking action against Sir Mo. Whether this would be the case if he wasn’t one of Britain’s most successful Olympians and a knight of the realm is another matter. To emphasise this point, it was made clear to Farah by his barrister that his British citizenship could be at risk because it was obtained “by fraud or misrepresentations” given that his real name was not Mohammed Farah. However, the Home Office made clear that they wouldn’t be taking action because the assumption is that a child is not complicit when a citizenship is gained by deception.

The case also brings to light the extent to which human trafficking and domestic servitude blights the UK. In 2020, the US State Department estimated that there were approximately 13,000 trafficking victims in the UK. 2021 saw a 10% rise in the number of child trafficking victims who have been identified in the UK, a total of 5,468. 2,477 of these are children, like Mo Farah, who had been trafficked into the UK. While the UK does clearly suffer from the blight of human trafficking, it is also ranked as a Tier-1 country in the US State Department’s annual report. This means that it complies with the minimum standard set by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.

The Nationality and Borders Act 2022

While the approach towards tackling human trafficking has improved in the UK with the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, experts say that the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 has potentially made child victims of human trafficking less likely to come forward. The Nationality and Borders Act can result in a case being weakened if a victim of human trafficking does not come forward quickly, and the process of age-processing young asylum seekers has been taken away from social workers and put in the hands of border officials.

With only 2% of child trafficking victims being granted discretionary leave to remain according to government figures, something they are entitled to under international law. Furthermore, of all over 18’s who were trafficked illegally to the UK as unaccompanied children, just 35% were initially refused asylum in 2020. This puts current and future victims in a very difficult position. The creation of a two-tier asylum system in the Nationality and Borders Act creates a distinction between those who arrived in the UK legally, Group 1, and those who arrive in the UK illegally, Group 2. Farah would therefore have fallen into the Group 2 category, meaning that his route to citizenship would be longer. His path to citizenship now would have been temporary asylum status under the 10-year route, despite not having any control of his actions as a child.

What will happen now?

While Farah has been absolved of any wrongdoing by the police and told by the Home Office that “no action will be taken whatsoever against Sir Mo”, this does not mean that the matter is over. The Metropolitan Police have subsequently launched an investigation into the claims by Farah that he was trafficked into the UK and forced into domestic servitude. This will include investigating the couple which brought him into the UK and made him cook, clean and babysit. We wait to see if anything comes of this investigation.

Our comments

Firstly, we must commend Farah for his bravery in revealing the truth to the world about his true identity and the circumstances which brought him to the UK. Now 39, and no longer an Olympic athlete, it would have been easy for him to continue life with the spotlight off him. Sir Mo’s story has shed a light on the dark underbelly of human trafficking, and one would hope that it may help people and those in positions of power to sympathise with victims of similar circumstances. While we celebrate Farah’s achievements and the fact that the Home Office was so quick to reassure people that there was no threat to his British citizenship, it clearly should not be the case that the same is not true for those with a much lower profile.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Is breakfast cereal junk food? Yes, according to the High Court!

Is breakfast cereal junk food? That’s what the High Court decided recently when the cereal manufacturer, Kellogg’s, failed in its legal challenge against the government’s new food strategy.

The proposed regulations by the Department for Health and Social Care would mean that foods which are high in fat, salt and sugar would be banned from promotional offers such as buy one get one free and extra free. The measures are set to come in in October 2022.

Kellogg’s claimed that because their cereal is eaten with milk, this means that they should not come under the category of junk food. This was however dismissed on the basis that the addition of milk would not affect the fact that the cereal was already high in sugar.

Keep reading to learn more about this case.

The government’s anti-obesity strategy

As mentioned before, foods considered to be high in fat, salt, and sugar (HFSS) will be prevented from being able to take part in promotional offers from October 2022. These foods will also be unable to be displayed in high profile locations such as checkouts, shop entrances and aisle ends.

Kellogg’s contention with the regulations is driven by the fact that 54.7% of its products are classed as ‘less healthy’, a term the government uses to define these HFSS foods. Furthermore, 30% of Kellogg’s HFSS foods are sold through location promotions, which will cost the company £5m in profit according to the manufacturer.

The measures have caused a debate in the UK, with some finding it perverse to introduce regulations banning promotion on food during a cost-of-living crisis and at a time when millions of Britons also use food banks.

Nevertheless, there was also a sharp rise in childhood obesity during the Covid pandemic, with 14.4% of 4- and 5-year-olds now classed as obese compared to 9.9% in 2019/2020. In fact, while the measures were originally intended to be introduced in May, they were delayed until October over concerns by Boris Johnson over the cost-of-living crisis.

High Court dismisses Kellogg’s argument

Kellogg’s main argument was that unlike other HFSS foods, cereal is nearly always eaten with milk. Tom Hickman, QC, and counsel for Kellogg, made the case that because cereals are ‘overwhelmingly consumed with milk’, the overall proportion of sugar and salt is slashed and that therefore they shouldn’t be classed as junk food.

While Kellogg’s products like Coco Pops, Frosties, and Crunchy Nut are being measured without the inclusion of milk, other products such as hot chocolate or soup are being assessed with the inclusion of milk or water. Kellogg’s claim that their breakfast cereals are a ‘dehydrated food’, which are intended to absorb liquid which subsequently transforms its shape and texture. However, unlike tins of hot chocolate or soup you find in the supermarket, cereal can be eaten dry. This is certainly a hole in the argument made by Kellogg’s.

Kellogg’s also criticised the way the regulations had been developed, stating that they did not receive proper parliamentary scrutiny. Justice Linden dismissed this idea, pointing out that none of the breakfast cereal manufacturers raised the fact that they didn’t agree with the cereals being judged ‘as sold’ rather than ‘as consumed’, the latter of which formed the basis of Kellogg’s argument.

Following the outcome of the case, Kellogg’s have stated publicly that they will not be appealing against the verdict which the High Court came to. Kellogg’s also warned that this could subsequently result in higher prices for consumers once the regulations come in due to the lost profits which are expected to follow.

Our comments

We think it’s fair to say that the conclusion reached by the High Court in this case is one which the majority of people wouldn’t have too many arguments against. While they may not necessarily agree with the regulations themselves, Kellogg’s didn’t have a particularly strong case in arguing that because of the milk which is generally added to cereal, this means that its products should somehow be excluded from being classed as high in sugar, when they are in fact high in sugar.

However, there may be a happy outcome for Kellogg’s. Following the resignation of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister, the outcome of the Conservative leadership contest will determine whether or not the regulations come into effect in October, or indeed at all.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Welcome Rita

We are delighted to welcome another new member of the team, Rita Wu, to Lisa’s Law! Rita joins the team as a legal assistant and has already shown her skill and enthusiasm since joining the company last week.

Rita went to Loughborough University’s London campus, where she gained an MSc in Sports Business and Leadership. She also achieved an MSc in International Business Management at Kingston University.

Rita has an extensive background in sports and business, working in the sector for 5 years before coming to the UK.

She is also fluent in both Mandarin and English.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Man wins right to have a surrogacy baby using embryo created with his late wife

In today’s family law article, we will look at an unusual case which made headlines across the internet. It presents a complex moral issue for the parties but one which offers hope and optimism for the claimant involved as well as the few who similar situations in the future.

The landmark ruling gives widower, Ted Jennings, the right to use the last remaining embryo he created with his late wife to try for a baby through surrogacy, despite her lack of written consent.

Keep reading to learn more about this fascinating case involving what could be the UK’s first case of posthumous surrogacy.

Background

Thirty-eight-year-old Ted Jennings had spent a number of years trying to have children with his late wife, Fern-Marie Choya but had so far been unsuccessful. They sought fertility treatment, and but sadly Choya died while pregnant with twin girls conceived by IVF in 2019 after suffering a uterine rupture.

Originally from Trinidad, the couple met in London and married in 2009. They had tried for several years to have a baby but had been unsuccessful until 2018 and had two miscarriages during the intervening years. Following Choya’s death, Jennings tried to use the couple’s last frozen embryo to start a family, however this was rejected by the fertility regulator, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). This is because Choya didn’t give her prior written consent before she died, a requirement for using frozen embryos in surrogacy posthumously.

The case

Although the form provided by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority makes it clear that a man’s consent is required for a partner to use their embryos after his death, the woman’s form did not provide a provision for the same occurrence in the event of her own death. While Jennings accepted that his wife did not give the written consent which is usually required in order for the couple’s embryos to be used, he argued that they were simply not given the information or opportunity to be able to give written consent.

Jennings told the court that he and his wife had decided that they would keep the last embryo for surrogacy in the event that their IVF treatment was unsuccessful. The court ruled that it should not uphold the requirement in Sch 3 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to require written and signed consent. The conclusion which was given about Ms Choya’s consent was supported by written evidence from both her family and her friend.

In her ruling, Justice Theis decided that a refusal to allow Jennings to use the embryo for surrogacy would be a disproportionate interference with Jennings’ right to a family life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The ruling also states that Section 3 of the Human Rights Act requires the court, “so far as is possible, to read and give effect to primary and subordinate legislation in a way which is compatible with Convention rights.”

The court ruled that in future, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority “may want to consider whether the form should be reviewed in order to provide the clarity required and avoid this situation occurring again”.

Our comments

This is obviously a complex legal case, representing the first of its kind in the UK at least, but one which many will agree reached a satisfactory conclusion considering the beliefs of Mr Jennings’ late wife and Mr Jennings himself.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was of clear importance in this particular case. Also instrumental was Section 3 of the Human Rights Act, which requires the court to interpret primary legislation in a way which is compatible with the ECHR. The influence of the ECHR has been of much debate following the replacement of the Human Rights Act with a proposed British Bill of Rights by the Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister, Dominic Raab. With the Bill of Rights specifically targeting Article 8, it throws into question how similar cases like this will be dealt with if the Human Rights Act was replaced.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Welcome Dongni!

We are very pleased to welcome Dongni Xu, our newest colleague, to Lisa’s Law. Dongni will be working as a legal assistant and has already demonstrated her skill and enthusiasm for the role since joining the company.

Dongni completed her MA in Law and Business at the University of Kent and recently finished her LLM in International Commercial Law in 2021. She is excited about her position as a legal assistant with Lisa’s Law as it allows her to explore a range of legal areas. She is also planning to complete her Solicitor’s Qualifying Examination (SQE) exam next year.

Dongni is fluent in both Mandarin and English. Outside of work, she also enjoys doing Muay Thai and planting.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

A fast track to digital surveillance? European Consumer Organisation takes action against Google

You probably have a Google account, and probably also assume that everything you do on Google’s services is tracked, but do you realise the extent to which Google actively pushes you towards ensuring that you don’t avoid its surveillance practises? The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) has directly sought to tackle this issue by announcing that it will be taking action against Google.

The action has been brought about over concerns that Google unfairly directs those who sign up towards an increased amount of surveillance. This is in breach of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR), which encourages privacy by default for consumers. Since being introduced in 2016, GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) has been a key component of EU privacy law as well as human rights law.

Keep reading to find out more about the action and the reasons behind it.

BEUC action being taken against Google

The coalition taking action includes ten consumer group organisations from a range of countries across Europe. Although the UK organisations which include Citizens Advice and Which? didn’t take action against Google, they are members of the European Consumer Organisation and have retained an identical form of the GDPR regulation despite no longer being an EU member.

The BEUC added that “tens of millions of Europeans have been placed on a fast track to surveillance when they signed up to a Google account”. They argue that the sign up stage is the crucial point when Google asks users to choose how their account privacy will be handled.

The UK is currently in the middle of seeking to reform its data protection regulations with the Data Reform Bill, which was announced in May’s Queen’s Speech.

How does Google’s sign up process lead consumers down a “fast track to surveillance?”

Google is pretty much a permanent presence in all of our lives. Even if you don’t use a Google phone, the chances are that you use Google’s search engine on a fairly regular basis. Other Google services also include their Android mobile operating system, Chrome browser, YouTube, Gmail, Google Maps and the Google Play Store. Gmail and the Google Play Store require an account in order to use them, making the sign-up process which users undergo particularly pertinent for those services. This means it’s in all of our interests to know how our data is being used and that privacy rules are up to scratch.

When users sign up to a Google account, they must indicate preferences on three different settings. This includes:

1. Web and app activity

2. YouTube history

3. Ad personalisation

If users select ‘express personalisation’ rather than ‘manual personalisation’, then this gives Google permission to track everything a user does across its services (web and app activity, YouTube history, ad personality). While express personalisation takes just one step, manual personalisation takes 5 steps. It is therefore unsurprising that consumers would choose express personalisation over manual personalisation. Despite this, it is not possible to switch the express personalisation settings in one step.

After a legal analysis by BEUC and the agency AWO found that Google’s sign-up process is designed to service the interests of the company as well as against EU data protection law in the following ways:

No data protection by design and by default
Un-transparent and unfair data processing, deceptive design and invalid consent
Breaches of purpose limitation, data minimisation and storage limitation principles

According to the BEUC, all of these factors combined created an experience which is in their view, unlawful processing of customers’ personal data. Furthermore, by making the process convoluted when it comes to being able to avoid surveillance “by design and by default”, this is what puts users on a “fast track to surveillance”.

Google’s signup process and the processing of personal data which follows this runs contrary to the EU’s GDPR in a number of ways.

Other ongoing investigations

At the same time that this investigation is going on, a previous investigation by the BEUC which was filed in February 2020 into Google’s use and collection of location data is also continuing. This followed a complaint against Google over the same matter in 2018.

Ireland’s Data Protection Commission was appointed the lead authority on the complaints and expects to make a decision on the investigation into Google and its handling of location data in the next few months.

The BEUC has a number of suggestions which it believes should be implemented into Google’s practises. Primarily, this includes revising its sign up process in order to make sure that privacy is the default as well as being fully transparent about how the users data will be processed.

It also argues that data protection authorities should enforce and impose an “effective, proportionate and deterrent fine” against Google for any infringement of GDPR.

Our comments

This action taken by the BEUC follows a recent trend of steps being taken across the world against large corporation’s handling of data, particularly in the case of the Online Safety Bill in the UK and the European Parliament’s Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act, the latter of which seeks to restrain the power of tech giants over the rest of the industry.

While this action has come later than many might have hoped and wished and is yet to yield results, it does seem to be a step in the right direction by the BEUC in attempting to ensure consumers are better informed about their data use and global tech giants like Google are held to account. If the action is successful and BEUC manages to get Google to comply with GDPR then this would certainly be a good result for consumers, not just in the EU but potentially worldwide as well.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio