Moreover, with regard to the nature of the relationship between the parties, it was determined in the case of a certain person that it must be examined on its own:
"It is possible that the contract between the Ministry of Education and the Respondent, which deals with governmental-public activity, will have commercial aspects (see: Dafna Barak-Erez, Administrative Law, Vol. 3 - Economic Administrative Law 203-198 (2013)), but this is a matter between the Respondent and the Ministry of Education, and the appellants are not a party to it. In other words, the fact that there is a dealer-client relationship between the State and the Respondent does not indicate that such a relationship exists between the Appellants and the Respondent. Each legal relationship stands on its own - and as clarified, in our case the service provided to appellant 1 is clearly in a public-governmental framework." (Section 13).
In other words, the relationship between the class members and the respondent must be examined on its own.
- Another case in which the court has discussed the applicability of Item 1 in the context of claims of invasion of privacy is the Mengistu case. It seems that there is a similarity between our case and the Mengistu case. In that case, a class action lawsuit was filed against a company that developed and operates an app that enables the identification of incoming phone calls from non-confidential phone numbers. The applicant there, who did not install or make use of the application, discovered that when he calls people, he appears with them as "Hafer from Ashkelon" and submitted the request for approval for non-pecuniary damage caused as a result of the invasion of privacy, and also claimed that the company had illegally collected information about him and others who are not its customers and did not agree to include their details with it. The court dismissed the application out of hand after finding that it did not fall within the scope of Item 1 of the Law.
- I am of the opinion that with respect to the arguments that stand at the core of the application for approval, there is a real difficulty in arguing that this is a claim that comes within the scope of a dealer-client relationship, when there is clearly no client-dealer relationship between the members of the class and the respondent when they are not registered for its services.
- It is necessary to examine the significance that should be attributed to the conclusion of Clause 1 , which states that it applies to a claim against a dealer in connection with a matter between him and a customer "whether or not they entered into a transaction".
It seems that the clause of the individual does indeed expand the circle of situations that follow within the scope of Item 1, but this does not waive the requirement that the claim be rooted in the dealer-customer relationship, and the extension relates to the fact that Item 1 will apply even if they did not enter into a transaction.