Google users will have the right to sue the internet giant in British courts over its 'clandestine' tracking of their browsing, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

A group known as Safari Users Against Google's Secret Tracking want to take legal action in the English courts over the way Google tracks users of Apple Safari's internet browser.

They accuse Google of bypassing security settings in order to track their online browsing and to target them with personalised advertisements.

The group believes a landmark ruling in their favour now opens the door for litigation by millions of internet users.

Ruling: Google users will have the right to sue the internet giant in British courts over its 'clandestine tracking of their browsing (file picture)

Three judges have dismissed Google's appeal over a High Court ruling against it and ruled claims for damages can be brought over allegations of misuse of private information.

Today's ruling was a victory for Safari Users, including editor and publisher Judith Vidal-Hall, and Robert Hann and Marc Bradshaw, who are both IT security company directors.

They say Google's 'clandestine' tracking and collation of internet usage between summer 2011 and early 2012 led to distress and embarrassment among UK users.

They accuse Google of collecting private information without their knowledge and consent by the use of 'cookies' - a small string of text saved on the user's device.

Dan Tench, a partner at law firm Olswang, which represents the group, is quoted by the Times the landmark ruling potentially 'opens the door for litigation by millions of British Apple users'.

He said the case decides 'whether British consumers actually have any right to hold Google to account in this country'.

Mr Tench added: 'This is the appropriate forum for this case - here in England where the consumers used the internet and where they have a right to privacy.'

WHY DO APPLE SAFARI USERS WANT TO SUE GOOGLE? A group of internet users want to sue Google, claiming the internet giant secretly tracked their browsing habits in order to bombard them with targeted adverts. The claimants, known as Safari Users Against Google's Secret Tracking, all used Apple's Safari browser and have accused Google of bypassing security settings in order to track their online browsing and target them with adverts. Google was accused of misuse of private information, breach of confidence and breaking data protection laws They say that cookies, small tracking files, were installed by Google on the Apple computers and mobile devices of those using the Safari internet browser without their knowledge. Cookies are used by advertisers, and owners of other websites, to target advertising based on an individual's internet use. The campaigners also say that Google's 'clandestine' tracking and collation of internet usage between summer 2011 and spring 2012 led to distress and embarrassment among UK users. The claimants accused Google of misuse of private information, breach of confidence and breaking data protection laws. Advertisement

The appeal judges unanimously ruled that misuse of private information was a tort - a civil wrong - for the purposes of the rules governing service out of the jurisdiction, enabling legal action to go ahead.

They also clarified the law on the meaning of 'damage' in section 13 of the Data Protection Act.

Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls, and Lady Justice Sharp said in their joint judgment, with which Lord Justice McFarlane agreed: 'On the face of it, these claims raise serious issues which merit a trial.

'They concern what is alleged to have been the secret and blanket tracking and collation of information, often of an extremely private nature... about and associated with with the claimants' internet use, and the subsequent use of that information for about nine months.

'The case relates to the anxiety and distress this intrusion upon autonomy has caused.'

Three judges have dismissed Google's appeal over a High Court ruling against it and ruled claims for damages can be brought over allegations of misuse of private information

The appeal judges said Mr Justice Tugendhat, who heard the case in the High Court, was entitled to come to the view that it was 'clearly arguable' that Article 8 (right to private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights was engaged and gave weight to allowing the claims to proceed.

The judges also said Google Inc had estimated its trial costs at £1.2million, which seemed 'extremely high' and they could be controlled by the court's management powers.

They said some of the technical issues in the case may already have been addressed by litigation against Google in the US over the Safari issue.

In August 2012 Google had agreed to pay a civil penalty of $22.5million (£15.1million) to settle charges, brought by the United States Federal Trade Commission that it misrepresented to users of the Safari browser that it would not place tracking cookies or serve targeted advertisements to those users.

In November 2013 it also agreed to pay $17million (£11.4million) to settle US state consumer-based actions brought against it by the attorneys general representing 37 states and the District of Colombia.