knowledge 30 June 2025 |

Ireland’s First Representative Action: ICCL v Microsoft

Who are ICCL?

ICCL identifies defending digital rights as a particular work focus; its Senior Fellow, Mr Johnny Ryan has issued various proceedings against “Big Tech” in the European Union (see our briefing on ICCL’s designation as a Qualified Entity under the Act here).

What does the action relate to?

ICCL have indicated that the proceedings concern Microsoft’s use of “real-time bidding” (“RTB”) technology in its online advertising business.  In a press release announcing the proceedings, ICCL allege that Microsoft’s RTB system: collects and processes extensive personal data from users of Microsoft products and services including Windows, Xbox, Office, Edge browser, and then "broadcasts" detailed user profiles, including sensitive personal information like financial status, gambling habits, health data, and employment in national security roles, to numerous advertisers for the purpose of targeted advertising. 

ICCL claims that Microsoft’s use of RTB constitutes a “data breach” because it collects too much personal information about internet users and lacks effective measures to monitor or control the dissemination of this data. ICCL argue that this raises significant concerns about GDPR compliance, especially in terms of user consent, data security and the extent of data processing.

Reliefs sought

It has been reported that the proceedings are being brought on behalf of all consumers in the State whose personal data rights are being allegedly infringed by Microsoft’s processing and that ICCL is seeking injunctive reliefs, including orders restraining Microsoft from processing certain identified categories of personal data.

Injunctive Relief

While the Act allows Qualified Entities to seek injunctive relief and/or redress measures such as compensation, it appears from the report referenced above that ICCL are pursuing injunctive relief in this case. Injunctive relief is governed by section 23 of the Act, and the principal requirements are summarised below.

(i) Reliefs

The Court may grant an injunction to cease a practice or, where appropriate, to prohibit a practice where that practice has been deemed by the Court to constitute an infringement. The Court may (a) declare that the practice constitutes an infringement, and (b) direct the trader concerned— (i) to publish the decision in such form as the Court considers appropriate, or (ii) to publish a corrective statement in such form as the Court considers appropriate.

(ii) Requirement for Prior Consultation with the Trader

Section 23(3) requires that the Qualified Entity must satisfy the Court that it has sought to engage with the trader in an effort to resolve the alleged infringement, in accordance with section 21 of the Act, before commencing proceedings for an injunction. Section 21 provides that the Qualified Entity must either request the trader to cease the infringement, request the trader to enter into consultations, or itself enter into consultations with the trader with the aim of resolving the matter. Where, after consultation or reasonable efforts are made to initiate them or the trader has refused to participate, the trader continues the infringing conduct, and a period of two weeks has elapsed since the request for consultations, the Qualified Entity may proceed to apply to the Court for an injunction. 

(iii) No Requirement for Notification by Consumers

Section 23(6) expressly provides that an individual consumer is not required to notify the qualified entity that that they wish to be represented in actions for injunctive relief. In contrast, a consumer who wishes to be represented in an action for redress measures must notify the Qualified Entity.

(iv) No Requirement to Prove Actual Loss, Damage, Intent, or Negligence

Section 23(7) clarifies the evidentiary provides that a Qualified Entity is not required to prove (a) actual loss or damage on the part of an individual consumer affected by the alleged infringement, or (b) intent or negligence on the part of the trader.

What’s next?

The outcome of this litigation, where successful, could have significant ramifications for technology companies operating in Ireland and the wider EEA, particularly those utilising RTB or similar ad tech systems.  

As the first representative action under the new Irish regime, this case is likely to serve as a blueprint for future actions. An application for entry into the Commercial List has been issued returnable to 30 June 2025, at which point further details in relation to the progression of the case may become known.

For further information on the Act, see our previous briefings here and here.

Also contributed to by Rory Purcell