If this is amazing chutzpah, then everyone has it. It's bog standard to claim that complainants don't have standing to sue.

This is what happens when you try to impose narrative on arguments in court filings. They aren't like regular arguments.

You could just as easily write the next story on if Google is so confident that they can't be sued in the UK, why are they making all these other arguments about why the complainants are wrong? It really undermines their argument if they have to take multiple approaches to it!

Edit: if anyone can find the actual filing, please link it. I'm happy to eat crow if I'm wrong :) I found coverage of this in the telegraph as well, but they also don't link to the actual submission to the court.