Google Main Search by MoneyBlogNewz (CC BY 2.0)

Google Main Search by MoneyBlogNewz (CC BY 2.0)


European ‘Right to be Forgotten’ Ruling Fails to Strike Free Speech – Privacy Balance

The European Court of Justice shook up the privacy and Internet world last week by ruling that European data protection law includes a right to be forgotten with respect to search engine results that are “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant.” As a result of the decision, search companies such as Google will be required to remove results from its index that meet this standard upon request.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that as people flock to remove content from the Google search index – reports indicate that the company began receiving removal requests within hours of the ruling – there remains considerable uncertainty about how to implement the decision, whether it will migrate to Canada, and if a new right to be forgotten will serve the cause of privacy protection or harm free speech and access to information.

The decision arises from a 2010 complaint by a Spanish man who was upset to find that searching his name in Google yielded links to a 1998 announcement in a newspaper on a real estate auction designed to generate proceeds to pay back social security debts. The information was both factual and readily accessible online, yet the man felt that the now-outdated information was a violation of his privacy.

As the case made its way through the courts, several European countries waded into the issue. The Spanish and Italian governments sided with the confirmation of a right to be forgotten, while Austria, Greece, and Poland supported Google’s position that it should not be required to remove lawful content from its search index.

In ruling against Google, the court reached two key conclusions.

First, it ruled that it could assert jurisdiction over the search giant, despite the fact that the processing of the data took place outside of Spain. That aspect of the decision should not have been particularly surprising, since most countries take the position that a real and substantial connection (Google has a site and actively markets its services in Spain) is sufficient to assert jurisdiction over an out-of-country entity. For example, Canada maintains that its privacy laws apply to organizations outside the country that collect, use or disclose personal information of Canadians.

Second, the court ruled that Google could be compelled to remove links to personal information that is “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant.” While the court suggests that this akin to a right to be forgotten, it is really a right to digital obscurity since the actual content is not removed from the Internet.

Companies may be focused on the practical costs associated with content removal, but many already remove content if served with a valid court order, notification of defamation, or copyright infringement notice. Adding privacy removals may generate additional costs, but they do not raise significant technical challenges.

The legal challenges are far more troubling, however. First, the ruling vests enormous power and responsibility in the hands of search companies and other intermediaries. Rather than leaving difficult questions on the validity or harm of information to impartial courts, the ruling requires search engines to make the call.  Given the potential for liability if they refuse to remove the links, the search engines will likely err on the side of removal.

Second, the ruling does not lead to the removal of the underlying content itself, which in many instances may be both legal and accurate. If there are concerns about third party content (no one doubts the right of an individual to delete content they posted themselves), surely there is a need to address that issue, rather than targeting intermediaries such as search engines.

Third, the Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that the law must sometimes balance important rights such as privacy and freedom of expression. Yet the European ruling suggests that privacy trumps freedom of expression and the right to information. By eliminating the need for balance, the ruling shockingly undermines important speech rights in return for a bit of online obscurity.


  1. It sounds like a paradox removing an information from a search engine rather than from the source. If an information is out there I would like to be able to find it. If that information is unlawful than should be removed at the source. I would like search engines to be neutral as much as possible.

  2. Indexing is an automated process. Nobody at Google vets everything that that gets indexed. Nobody can. Google may very well respond favorably to a particular request, but that won’t prevent the link from reasserting itself through other means. If some other search engine takes over Google’s popularity in the future the battle will start over again. The Spanish complainant’s efforts have been counterproductive. Far more of the world now knows about his concern.

  3. @Ray
    “Far more of the world now knows about his concern.”
    and now have a solid legal recourse; so all was not lost
    In fact he helped many that would otherwise find themselves at the mercy of Corporate Policy (regardless of laws.)

  4. Insert Real Name says:

    If Google and other search engines are processing data from other web sites in order to present keyword search results, why shouldn’t people whose personal information is presented in that way have some form of control?

    The personal information found by an Internet search may be derived from perfectly correct and legal sources–people don’t have a right to erase facts about themselves (except in very limited areas, e.g. criminal pardons)–but present a misleading view of the person.

    Surely if the privacy obligations laid upon processors of personal information mean anything in any country, they are to provide a right for individuals to determine the personal information held by others and presented to public view! This is even more relevant in an era when the discovery of such information has become an entirely automated process and when the personal data of entire populations can be analysed and correlated.

    If Google (or any other Internet search engine) was allowed to present its view of the personal information it processes without means of contesting that view, why should any other company processing private information be held to a higher standard? How could governments justify any kind of personal information regulations in that case? The EU court made a coherent decision in respect to balancing people’s private information rights with those of this new era of Internet total information awareness.

  5. Anitadenny says:

    Wholesale high quality cheap HDMI Cable online
    Our professional provide Best HDMI Cable online stores and high quality

    cheap HDMI Cable Manufacturer, the lowest price of the HDMI Cables

    Wholesale. More information and products please check our website:

  6. mona ali says:

    شركة كشف تسربات بالرياض

    شركة نقل عفش بجدة

    شركة عزل خزانات بجدة

    شركات العزل الحراري بالرياض

    تدبيس المعدة

    شركة مكافحة البق بالرياض

    شركة الصالحي لكشف التسربات

    شركة رش مبيدات بالمدينة المنورة

    كشف تسربات المياة بجدة

    شركة تنظيف خزانات بمكة

    شركات رش المبيدات الحشرية بتبوك

    شركات رش المبيدات الحشرية بتبوك

    شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالرياض





  7. This is really interesting, You are a very skilled blogger.
    I’ve joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your wonderful post.
    Also, I’ve shared your web site in my social networks!

    my web blog :: marketing for success

  8. Wow, fantastic weblog structure! How long have you been running a blog for?
    you made running a blog look easy. The total glance of your site is
    wonderful, let alone the content!

    my web site; marketing for success