Photo of Louise Freeman

Louise Freeman

Louise Freeman represents parties in complex commercial disputes and class actions, and co-chairs the firm’s Commercial Litigation and EMEA Dispute Resolution Practice Groups.

Described by Legal 500 as “one of London’s most effective partners,” Louise helps clients to navigate challenging situations in a range of industries, including technology, life sciences and financial markets. Most of her cases involve multiple parties and jurisdictions, where her strategic, dynamic advice is invaluable. Chambers notes "Louise is tactically and strategically brilliant and has phenomenal management skills on complex litigation," she is "a class act."

Louise also represents parties in significant competition law claims, including a number of the leading cases in England.

Louise is a “recognised name for complex class actions” (Legal 500), defending clients targeted in proposed opt-out and opt-in claims, as well as advising clients on multi-jurisdictional class action risks.

Contact:Read more about Louise FreemanEmail

Now that the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (“AI Act”) has entered into force, the EU institutions are turning their attention to the proposal for a directive on adapting non-contractual civil liability rules to artificial intelligence (the so-called “AI Liability Directive”).  Although the EU Parliament and the Council informally agreed on the text of the proposal in December 2023 (see our previous blog posts here and here), the text of the proposal is expected to change based on a complementary impact assessment published by the European Parliamentary Research Service on September 19.Continue Reading The EU Considers Changing the EU AI Liability Directive into a Software Liability Regulation

On 9 October 2023, the European Parliament’s Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) and Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) agreed revised wording to amend the European Commission’s (the “EC”) proposed new Product Liability Directive (the “Directive”). The vote was passed with 33 votes in favour to 2 against. If adopted, the Directive will replace the existing (almost 40-year old) Directive 85/374/EEC on Liability for Defective Products, which imposes a form of strict liability on product manufacturers for harm caused by their defective products.Continue Reading EU Legislative Update on the New Product Liability Directive

In this blog post, we look at a recent decision by the UK Court of Appeal and a separate prosecution brought by the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”; the UK data protection authority), which together serve as a cautionary tale for employees and prospective future employers of the risks of civil liability and criminal conviction for confidential information and data theft.

Clear contractual terms and policies, supplemented by training, remain critical tools for employers seeking to deter employees from misappropriating corporate information.  Employers may wish to make use of these examples to underscore the importance of compliance.Continue Reading Employee Confidentiality and Data Theft: Recent UK Developments

The English High Court has recently awarded damages in a data privacy case, with two features of particular interest.  First, the nature of the claim is more reminiscent of a claim in defamation than for data privacy breaches, which is a development in the use of data protection legislation.  Secondly, the damages awarded (perhaps influenced by the nature of the case) were unusually high for a data privacy case.

The decision highlights an unusual use of data protection in English law, as a freestanding form of quasi-defamation claim, as the claimants sought damages for reputational harm (as well as distress) solely under the Data Protection Act 1998 (the “DPA”, since replaced by the Data Protection Act 2018, which implemented the General Data Protection Regulation ((EU) 2016/679) (GDPR) in the UK) rather than in a libel or defamation claim, or in parallel with such a claim.  It also sets a potentially unhelpful precedent by awarding two of the claimants £18,000 each for inaccurate processing of their personal data, an amount that is significantly higher than has been awarded in other data protection cases brought under the DPA.  If such awards were to be made in the context of a class action, the potential liability for data controllers could be significant.
Continue Reading English High Court Awards Damages for Quasi-Defamation Data Claim

On 1 April 2020, the UK Supreme Court handed down its ruling in WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12.  The Court ruled that Morrisons was not vicariously liable for a data breach deliberately perpetrated by an employee.  The judgment is significant in that it overturned the decisions of the two lower courts (the High Court and Court of Appeal) and provides guidance for employers on when they may be held vicariously liable for data breaches and other violations of the GDPR involving employees, who act as independent controllers in their own right.
Continue Reading UK Supreme Court Rules That Supermarket Is Not Vicariously Liable For Data Breach Committed By Employee