Kemp Little
  • Looking for someone?
  • Email us
  • Search
MENU MENU
Insights overview

Commercial technology · Disputes · Intellectual property · 13 December 2019 · Jeremy Harris · Rich Folsom

The Data Series Part 2: Damages for data misuse

Another week, and another data audit that we have been asked to help with at KL. It certainly seems like a recurring theme for organisations… Read more

more content below

Another week, and another data audit that we have been asked to help with at KL. It certainly seems like a recurring theme for organisations that licence-in large amounts of data. Given the rise of such audits, we wanted to publish our thoughts on damages claims for data misuse under English contract law, and to emphasise the importance of dealing with such audits properly.

This article follows on from our first article on ‘top tips for data licensees’ and will look at some fundamental issues relating to damages for data misuse.  The series will continue with articles focusing on non-financial remedies in respect of data misuse, practical tips on dealing with audits, and drafting tips for data licences.

No harm, no foul

A basic principle of English contract law is that a damages claim for breach of contract should put the innocent party into the position that it would have been had the breach not occurred. In other words, the innocent party should be compensated for the actual loss suffered, but the party in breach should not be punished or penalised in excess of that loss.  Sometimes these damages are called ‘expectation damages’ as the aim is to put the innocent party in the position it expected.

However, in the case of misuse of data, the expectation principle often does not help data licensors. If you take a case where data that is widely available on a commercial basis is licensed to a licensee for purpose X, but the licensee also uses the data for purpose Y. The licensor is not materially worse off from the additional use – it would, of course, have charged more at the outset to allow the licensee to use the data for purpose Y, but it didn’t.  The licensee has paid the licence fees in full and on time; and the licensor might be reluctant to bring an IP infringement claim for an account of profits – as the data might not attract IP rights and the licensor is unlikely to want this tested in court.

In the above scenario, the licensor’s claim for breach of contract on the expectation damages principle would be for the minor (and likely indirect) damages flowing from the data being less valuable as a result of the dilution of wider use and deployment. However, the licensor might try to claim damages on an alternative basis: negotiating damages. This is why the increasing prevalence of data audits might cause alarm for licensees.

No Parking

For many years the leading authority on “negotiating damages” was the Wrotham Park case[1] – and indeed the damages were known as ‘Wrotham Park’ damages.  However, in the One Step case[2] in 2018, the Supreme Court clarified the law regarding when these damages are available – and also told us to call them “negotiating damages”, not “Wrotham Park” damages.

The general situation in which a “negotiating damages” claim may be brought is:

“where the loss suffered … is appropriately measured by reference to the economic value of the right which has been breached, considered as an asset. That may be the position where the breach of contract results in the loss of a valuable asset created or protected by the right which was infringed.”

Importantly, negotiating damages is in fact seen as an evidential technique to calculate damages under the expectation principle, rather than an alternative measure of damages.  The remedy is the licence fee that would have been charged in respect of the misuse or, if there is no market, what a willing licensor and willing licensee would have agreed acting reasonably (but not necessarily what the particular parties would have agreed).

The historical basis for this type of claim is interference with land, and Wrotham Park itself expanded this to restrictive covenants.  However, case law has been clear that this remedy also applies to tangible property and IP cases.  Between then and the One Step case, however, there has been increasing uncertainty as to what exactly constitutes a ‘right which can be considered an asset’ – it is not much of a leap to class every contractual right an asset in some form.

The One Step judgment provides guidance on when this right applies, paraphrased as being cases where the claimant: (i) has an interest in the observance of his rights beyond financial reparation; (ii) would be entitled to specific enforcement of those rights; and (iii) has suffered pecuniary loss.

Data damages

For data licensors this guidance helps significantly and, in a situation where IP does not subsist in the misused dataset, it keeps ‘data’ within the remit of negotiating damages for contractual breach.

This analysis is fundamental to compensation in the context of data audits.  In the case of a minor licence breach, it places the ‘standard’ price list at the centre of the discussions.  However, in scenarios where the misuse in question is material (for example, because the data is not widely commercially available, or the licensor would not ordinarily licence the use in question), the analysis changes. In such situations, a data licensor could potentially rely on negotiating damages to request significant licence fees over and above the standard scale for normally permitted commercial use. This would be on the basis that, acting reasonably, those damages are what the licensor would have required in order to grant a licence for the use in question.

The Observer Effect

That said, there are still limits to the helpfulness of the One Step case.  Most obviously, the damages are circular.  A licensee might argue that it would not have paid very much for the extra licence fee for activity Y because, absent negotiating damages as an evidential technique, the licensor would not be able to show a quantum of loss for its damages claim.  Negotiating damages allows quantum to be crystallised, but the hypothetical licence fee might be low in a world without negotiating damages, and high in a world with them.  Much like the observer effect in physics stating that observation of a phenomenon changes the phenomenon, negotiating damages cannot observe the hypothetical licence fee, without modifying it.

Similarly, it is academically unclear how remoteness, causation and mitigation work in this context.  For example, what would the licensor need to show regarding remoteness and causation to recover the hypothetical licence fee, and what could it do to mitigate its losses?  These are rarely important issues in most commercial settings, as both parties are looking for a go-forward commercial resolution, while the licensor’s sales targets and quarter ends are likely to be in play.  From the licensee’s perspective, the potential discount on the settlement it might get by placing doubt on the remoteness, causation or mitigation of the licensor’s claim, would likely be more than offset by the resultant retraction of future licence fee discounts, the reduction in any remaining goodwill, and the internal management cost of on-going litigation uncertainty as the dispute continues.

Extrapolation

This series will continue with an array of data articles, returning to more practical considerations in the coming months: non-financial remedies in respect of data misuse; dealing with an audit and negotiating consequences; and contract drafting tips for licensees.

Feel free to reach out on areas you would specifically like to see covered.

 

 

[1] Wrotham Park v Parkside Homes [1974]

[2] Morris Garner v One Step [2018]

  • Share this blog

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin

Need to talk about this?

Jeremy HarrisJeremy Harris

Rich FolsomRich Folsom

Get in touch

Sign up for our newsletters

  • Share this Blog

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin

Other stuff you might like


    Notice: Undefined variable: show_default in /home/kemplittle/test.kemplittle.com/wp-content/themes/kemplittle/single.php on line 349
  1. The best way to learn from Thomas Cook and safeguard your agency | TTG media
  2. Society reigns supreme | CITMA
  3. Coding and law: how coding made me a better paralegal
The hottest topics in technology
  • Adtech & martech
  • Agile
  • Artificial intelligence
  • Brexit
  • Cloud computing
  • Complex & sensitive investigations
  • Connectivity
  • Cryptocurrencies & blockchain
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data analytics & big data
  • Data breaches
  • Data rights
  • Digital commerce
  • Digital content risk
  • Digital health
  • Digital media
  • Digital infrastructure & telecoms
  • Emerging businesses
  • Financial services
  • Fintech
  • Gambling
  • GDPR
  • KLick DPO
  • Open banking
  • Retail
  • SMCR
  • Software & services
  • Sourcing
  • Travel
close
The hottest topics in technology
  • Adtech & martech
  • Agile
  • Artificial intelligence
  • Brexit
  • Cloud computing
  • Complex & sensitive investigations
  • Connectivity
  • Cryptocurrencies & blockchain
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data analytics & big data
  • Data breaches
  • Data rights
  • Digital commerce
  • Digital content risk
  • Digital health
  • Digital media
  • Digital infrastructure & telecoms
  • Emerging businesses
  • Financial services
  • Fintech
  • Gambling
  • GDPR
  • KLick DPO
  • Open banking
  • Retail
  • SMCR
  • Software & services
  • Sourcing
  • Travel
Kemp Little

Lawyers
and thought leaders who are passionate about technology

Expand footer

Kemp Little

138 Cheapside
City of London
EC2V 6BJ

020 7600 8080

hello@kemplittle.com

Services

  • Commercial technology
  • Consulting
  • Disputes
  • Intellectual property
  • Employment
  • Immigration

 

  • Sourcing
  • Corporate
  • Data protection & privacy
  • Financial regulation
  • Private equity & venture capital
  • Tax

Sitemap

  • Our people
  • Insights
  • Events
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Cookies
  • Privacy
  • Terms of use
  • Compliants
  • Debt recovery charges

Follow us

  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • FlightDeck
  • Sign up for our newsletters

Kemp Little LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (registered number OC300242) and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Its registered office is 138 Cheapside, London EC2V 6BJ. The SRA Standards and Regulations can be accessed by clicking here.

  • Cyber Essentials logo
  • Tech Nation logo
  • LORCA logo
  • ABTA Partner+ logo
  • Make Your Ask logo
  • FT Innovative Lawyers 2019 winners logo
  • Law Society Excellence Awards shortlisted
  • Legal Business Awards = highly commended
  • Home
  • Our people
  • Services
    • Commercial technology
    • Consulting
    • Corporate
    • Data protection & privacy
    • Disputes
    • Employment
    • Financial regulation
    • Immigration
    • Innovation
    • Intellectual property
    • Private equity & venture capital
    • Sourcing
    • Tax
  • Insights
  • Quick reads
  • Events
  • About us
    • Who we are
    • Our social responsibilities
    • Our partnerships
    • Join us
  • Contact us
  • FlightDeck
  • LORCA
  • Sign up for our newsletters
  • Follow us
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn
close
close
close

Send us a message

Fill in your details and we'll be in touch soon


Notice: Trying to get property of non-object in /home/kemplittle/test.kemplittle.com/wp-content/plugins/contact-form-7-dynamic-text-extension/contact-form-7-dynamic-text-extension.php on line 330

close

Sign up for our newsletter

I would like to receive updates and related news from Kemp Little *

Please select from the areas of interest below.

Themes

Services

Please select below any publications that you would like to receive:

Newsletters

close

Register for future event information

close
close
Looking for someone?
Generic filters
Exact matches only

Can't remember their name? View everyone

  • Home
  • Our people
  • Services
    • Commercial technology
    • Consulting
    • Corporate
    • Data protection & privacy
    • Disputes
    • Employment
    • Financial regulation
    • Immigration
    • Innovation
    • Intellectual property
    • Private equity & venture capital
    • Sourcing
    • Tax
  • Insights
  • Quick reads
  • Events
  • About us
    • Who we are
    • Our social responsibilities
    • Our partnerships
    • Join us
  • Contact us
  • FlightDeck
  • LORCA
  • Sign up for our newsletters
  • Follow us
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn