Skip to content

General information only — not legal advice. Published by Edward & Amaury Solicitors, solicitors regulated by the SRA (no. 800525). How that affects what you read.

Think you have a claim? Time limits apply, so get a free case review from Edward & Amaury Solicitors today.

Start your claim

Data Protection Compensation Claims

England & WalesLast reviewed 18 September 2026

Under Article 82 of the UK GDPR, anyone who has suffered material or non-material damage because of an infringement can claim compensation from the controller or processor. The Supreme Court has held in Lloyd v Google that loss of control of data alone, without proof of damage or distress for each individual, is not enough.

The Right to Compensation

Direct Answer: Article 82 states that any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of an infringement has the right to receive compensation from the controller or processor.

Material damage means financial loss, for example from fraud after a breach. Non-material damage includes distress and reputational harm. Where more than one party is responsible, each can be liable for the whole amount, though they can recover contributions from each other.

Why Proof of Damage Matters

In Lloyd v Google, the Supreme Court held that loss of control of personal data alone, without proof that each person suffered damage or distress, did not give a right to compensation, and it stopped a large representative action from proceeding on that basis. In practice, claimants need evidence of what harm they actually suffered, and low-level distress claims may be worth modest amounts and can be difficult to justify economically.

Practical Steps

Keep the breach notice and any communications, record any fraud, costs and the effect on you, and consider whether to complain to the organisation and to the Information Commissioner first. Group claims exist in some cases, but each claimant must still show their own loss, so consider carefully who you instruct and on what terms.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I get compensation for a data breach in the UK?

Yes, if you suffered material or non-material damage because of an infringement of data protection law, under Article 82 of the UK GDPR.

Who can I claim against?

The controller, which decides how data is used, or in some circumstances the processor handling it for them.

Is distress enough?

Non-material damage such as distress can be compensated, but you must show that you suffered it, and it will not be assumed simply because a breach happened.

What did Lloyd v Google decide?

That loss of control of personal data alone, without proof of damage or distress by each individual, did not give a right to compensation under the earlier Data Protection Act 1998, so that representative action failed.

What evidence should I keep?

The breach notification, evidence of any financial loss or fraud, and a record of the effect on you, such as distress, time and costs.

Can I bring a data protection claim on a no win no fee basis?

Often, if a solicitor thinks the claim has reasonable prospects and is worth the cost of pursuing. Under a Conditional Fee Agreement you pay no solicitor fees if the claim fails, but a success fee is deducted from your damages if it succeeds and other costs may apply, so ask for the terms in writing and how disbursements are covered.

You May Also Be Interested In

Where this applies: This page covers England and Wales. The rules in Scotland and Northern Ireland are different.

Sources for this page

Every rule stated above is based on the primary sources below. Each link goes to the legislation, court rule or regulator itself so you can check it. Last verified 18 September 2026.

  1. UK GDPR Article 82 — Right to compensation and liability

    Any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of an infringement has the right to compensation from the controller or processor.

  2. Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50

    The Supreme Court held that loss of control of personal data alone, without proof of damage or distress by each individual, did not give a right to compensation under the Data Protection Act 1998, so the representative action could not proceed.

  3. Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, s.58 (conditional fee agreements)

    The provision that makes CFAs lawful and enforceable. CFAs derive from this section, not from LASPO.

  4. Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2013, arts. 4–5 · in force from 1 April 2013

    Art. 4 caps the success fee at 100% of base costs. Art. 5 caps what may be taken from damages in personal injury at 25% of PSLA plus past pecuniary loss, net of CRU, at first instance.

  5. Civil Procedure Rules, Part 44 (incl. rr.44.13–44.17, QOCS)

    Qualified one-way costs shifting and its exceptions. Rule 44.14 was amended with effect from 6 April 2023.

Who wrote and checked this page

Written and published by
Edward & Amaury Solicitors (Edward & Amaury Ltd, company no. 12195443), regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under no. 800525.
Legal review
This page has not yet been through independent legal review. It is written from the primary sources listed below, which you can check directly.
Review dates
Last reviewed 18 September 2026. Next review due 18 March 2027.

Fee rules change. California’s medical malpractice fee limits changed on 1 January 2023, and the QOCS rules in England and Wales changed on 6 April 2023. If you spot something out of date, tell us — we publish corrections.

Think you have a claim? Find out for free.

Reading the rules is the first step. Most claims have strict deadlines, and evidence is easier to gather the sooner you act. Tell Edward & Amaury Solicitors what happened and get a free, no-obligation review of your situation.

  • Free, no-obligation case review: you decide what happens next
  • Many claims are handled on a no win, no fee basis if the firm accepts your case
  • Takes about two minutes, and you can start with just the basics

Where this applies: This page covers England and Wales. The rules in Scotland and Northern Ireland are different.

Sources for this page

Every rule stated above is based on the primary sources below. Each link goes to the legislation, court rule or regulator itself so you can check it. Last verified 2 August 2026.

  1. Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, s.58 (conditional fee agreements)

    The provision that makes CFAs lawful and enforceable. CFAs derive from this section, not from LASPO.

  2. Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2013, arts. 4–5 · in force from 1 April 2013

    Art. 4 caps the success fee at 100% of base costs. Art. 5 caps what may be taken from damages in personal injury at 25% of PSLA plus past pecuniary loss, net of CRU, at first instance.

  3. Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, ss.44–46 · in force from 1 April 2013

    Ended recoverability of success fees and ATE premiums from the losing party. Did not create or regulate CFAs.

  4. Civil Procedure Rules, Part 44 (incl. rr.44.13–44.17, QOCS)

    Qualified one-way costs shifting and its exceptions. Rule 44.14 was amended with effect from 6 April 2023.

Who wrote and checked this page

Written and published by
Edward & Amaury Solicitors (Edward & Amaury Ltd, company no. 12195443), regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under no. 800525.
Legal review
This page has not yet been through independent legal review. It is written from the primary sources listed below, which you can check directly.
Review dates
Last reviewed 2 August 2026. Next review due 2 February 2027.

Fee rules change. California’s medical malpractice fee limits changed on 1 January 2023, and the QOCS rules in England and Wales changed on 6 April 2023. If you spot something out of date, tell us — we publish corrections.