ISRAEL Law and Practice Contributed by: Dan Or-Hof, Eran Gandman, Netanel Aharon and Matan Adar, Or-Hof Law
Claimant Profiles and Causes of Action Claims are brought by both individuals and groups. Individual actions typically arise in interpersonal and employment contexts, including unauthorised access to email or mobile devices, workplace surveillance, and unlawful disclosure of personal information. Such claims are commonly based on infringement of pri - vacy without consent under section 2 of the PPL, together with negligence and breach of statutory duty. At the collective level, there has been a growing num - ber of class actions against technology companies, healthcare providers, and other data-intensive organi - sations. These cases generally concern large-scale data breaches or systematic unauthorised processing, and rely on privacy infringement, breach of confiden - tiality, unjust enrichment, and related tortious causes of action, including consumer misleading practices under the Consumer Protection Law, 5741-1981. Courts increasingly focus on admissibility issues, including standing and the applicability of consumer- based causes of action. Remedies and Non-Material Damage Israeli law expressly recognises compensation for non-material harm. Section 29A of the PPL permits statutory damages without proof of actual loss, sub - ject to a statutory cap. Courts assess such damages on a case-by-case basis, considering the gravity of the infringement and deterrence needs, while general - ly adopting a restrained and proportionate approach. The Class Action Law 5766-2006 expressly permits compensation for non-monetary harm, reflecting the public interest in addressing widespread privacy vio - lations. 2.2 Recent Case Law Israeli courts have significantly clarified the proce - dural boundaries of privacy litigation following the enactment of Amendment No 13, particularly in class actions, which remain the primary vehicle for privacy claims in Israel. Class Action Limits and the “Trader-Customer” Relationship Recent case law reflects a restrictive interpretation of the Class Actions Law. In Greenblat v Meta Plat- forms, Inc (2025), the central district court rejected a
class action brought by non-users whose data was allegedly collected via third-party tracking, holding that commercial benefit alone does not establish a customer relationship. Similarly, in Osher (Estate) v Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center (2025), the court ruled that public hospitals generally provide public, rather than consumer, services, thereby limiting privacy- based class actions against public bodies. The Modern Standard for Informed Consent While narrowing standing, courts have raised the standard for consent. In Aviv v Meta Platforms (2025), the court approved a class action concerning the use of users’ names and profile photos in “social ads”. The court held that consent under Section 3 of the PPL must be genuinely informed, and that bundling consent to privacy practices within general terms of use is likely insufficient to establish lawful consent. This has driven a shift towards clear, separate and specific consent mechanisms. Statutory Damages Without Proof of Harm The courts have also reinforced Section 29A of the PPL, which permits statutory damages of up to ILS100,000 per violation without proof of actual harm. In Ploni v Almonit (2025), the court emphasised deter - rence as the primary rationale, holding that unlawful technological intrusion alone may justify significant compensation, particularly where transparency obli - gations are breached. 2.3 Collective Redress Mechanisms In Israel, collective redress is primarily pursued through class actions under the Class Actions Law. Although Israel lacks an equivalent to the EU Rep - resentative Actions Directive, its class action regime is highly active, particularly in consumer disputes, including privacy and cybersecurity claims. Class Actions Israel applies a “closed list” model, permitting class actions only for causes listed in the Second Schedule. In privacy and AI cases, claims are typically framed through consumer law, by characterising data pro - cessing as part of a service provided by a “trader” to a “consumer”.
188 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook