Report comment

"If the claimants had looked at DWF’s website ‘they would have been advised of the potential use of their personal information in order to perform services for its clients, and that elements of that information might be disclosed to third parties’, the judgment said."

While the decision itself seems reasonable, this particularly part seems a touch irrational. The Claimants don't get to pick whether the Defendant instructs DWF, so even if DWF's website said "we're going to steal all your data and sell it to criminals" its unclear what the Claimant is meant to do with that information as the data has already been given to them by a third party.