I am of the opinion that a claim of this type does not fall within the scope of a claim concerning the dealer-client relationship, to which Clause 1 of the Second Addendum is referred, nor even within the scope of the end of the section.
- In this context, there are a number of additional decisions in the case law that can be learned from them for our purposes. Thus, in the Brauner case, a request for approval was heard against Google for offering copyright owners to join the "Google Books" program and send it a copy of their number and join the program. The application for approval was submitted on behalf of those who did not join the program. It was determined that there is no "consumer" relationship between the parties. It was further determined that an argument raised in response to the motion for summary dismissal, according to which it was an offer of advertising services by Google, was artificial and therefore should be rejected. An appeal against the judgment continues on the recommendation of the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal 230/12 Jonathan Brauner v. Google, published in Databases, [Nevo], September 12, 2013).
- In the case of Jewel Labs, a motion to certify a class action regarding cigarette advertisements was discussed and denied. In the same matter, it was written in the context of Item 1 as follows:
"80. A necessary condition for the approval of a class action is that it is included in the second appendix to the law, and in this case the first detail is "a claim against a dealer, as defined in the Consumer Protection Law, in connection with a matter between him and a customer, whether they entered into a transaction or not."
- I am of the opinion that in view of the Applicants' declaration that they are opposed to smoking, and in light of the lack of proof of purchase or use of the products of Respondents 1-2 as a result of exposure to the advertisements in question, it is difficult to define the relationship between the Applicants and the Respondents as a 'dealer-customer' relationship. It should be noted that although the wording of the law indicates that no engagement is required in the transaction, the application for approval did not raise an argument regarding the intention or even the possibility that any of the applicants would enter into a transaction for the purchase of the products of respondents 1-2. As stated, Applicant 1 defined himself and his son as "anti-smoking" (see paragraph 11 of the motion for approval) and Applicant 2 did not submit an affidavit on his behalf at all.
- Moreover, respondents 3-5 declared that browsing their websites and using the applications does not entail payment, and it is clear that there is substance in their argument that accepting the Applicants' approach regarding the existence of a "dealer-customer" relationship means turning every surfer of a commercial website, or a user of the application, into a "customer", in a manner that will lead to the displacement of the consumer purpose of Item 1 of the Addendum and constitute an unreasonable and inappropriate extension. Especially when we are interested in a powerful device such as the class action. It is only because the inclusion of the case in question within the scope of Item 1 of the Second Addendum appears on the face of it to be forced." (Emphasis added - A.R.B.)
Similarly, in our case, the request for approval is issued against violations of privacy, and it is not sufficient that following the actions against which the request for approval is directed, the invitation to join Facebook was sent in order to bring a Item 1 claim filed by those who chose not to be members of Facebook.
- It should be noted that after the summaries were submitted, the Respondent filed a motion to add a reference, in which it requested to attach a decision given in the motion to deny jurisdiction in a class action (Central District) 42145-05-24 Open AI LLC v. Haim Barak Cohen (published in the Databases, [Nevo], June 18, 2025). The applicant agreed to the request to attach her certification. Each side claimed that the said decision supported its position. In that case, a motion to certify a class action was filed, claiming that the Respondent and Microsoft had used private information, including personally identifiable information from Internet users, in violation of privacy. The lawsuit was filed by the public using the network that did not use Open AI applications but whose personal information was allegedly taken illegally. In the decision, it was determined that the matter of the application for approval did not fall within the scope of the second addendum, and therefore a motion to deny the authority was granted.
This is a decision that is not conclusive, and therefore I have found that it would be correct to make do with bringing the decision as it was given.
- 0It has already been ruled in the case of a certain person that: "... The conduct of a class action for an invasion of privacy will be possible only in those situations in which such an infringement is committed within the framework of one of the relationships to which one of the particulars of the second addendum relates..." (ibid., in paragraph 9).
It was further ruled in the case of Anonymous that: