In practice, the Applicant is interested in expanding the institution of the class action by interpreting the term "client" found in item 1 of the Second Addendum in a manner that will open the door to a lawsuit for violation of the privacy of the public as a whole and not of the defendants' clients. However, as was ruled in the Anonymous case and quoted above, it is the legislature that chooses in which situations class actions should be allowed (see also Class Action (Tel Aviv District) 68316-11-22 Miri Shabtai Oscar z"l v. Ichilov Medical Center Civil Case Appeal Shona Sarasky (published in the Databases, [Nevo], January 20, 2025) at paragraphs 116 and 144).
It emerges from all of the above that the application for approval does not meet the conditions of Item 1 of the Second Addendum to the Law. In fact, this was enough to lead to the rejection of the application for approval. However, as a matter of caution, I have found it necessary to address additional issues for which I believe it is not possible to grant the request for approval.
The existence of a personal cause of action
- The parties disagree as to the existence of a personal cause of action for the applicant, and whether the applicant is a member of the class he wishes to represent. This is in accordance with the requirements of section 4 of the Class Actions Law.
- It should be noted that in the framework of the decision given by the Honorable Justice Stammer in the motion for summary dismissal, a reference to this matter was included. In paragraph 29 of Justice Stammer's decision, it was written in the aforementioned context as follows:
"This is an issue that must be clarified factually since the applicant claimed that he did not operate the Facebook page except for the business, while his claims here are related to the private use of those who did not register. Although a claim regarding suitability to serve as a class plaintiff can constitute a basis for a threshold claim in appropriate cases (Class Action (Tel Aviv District) 56441-05-20 Alexander Rabinovich v. Shenhav Industries in Tax Appeal [Nevo] (March 8, 2021)), in our case it requires factual clarification, which is not appropriate for the preliminary proceeding."