Google Scores Major Victory in 'Right to Be Forgotten' Case in Europe
The EU's Court of Justice has ruled that search engines such as Google do not have to remove links beyond Europe's borders in so-called "right-to-be-forgotten" cases.
September 24, 2019 at 06:33 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In a major victory for Google, the European Union's Court of Justice has ruled that search engines do not have to remove links in so-called "right to be forgotten" cases from all its global search engine results.
The EU's highest court said that EU data protection law was not designed to be applied outside the territory of the bloc's 28 members. Search engine operators could therefore not be expected to remove links from all versions of their search engines.
"The right to the protection of personal data is not an absolute right, but must be considered in relation to its function in society and be balanced against other fundamental rights, in accordance with the principle of proportionality," the court found.
It also said the balance between the right to privacy and the protection of personal data and the freedom of information of internet users was "likely to vary significantly around the world," so EU rules could not be applied automatically.
It added that search engine companies should take measures to prevent individuals who make searches on engines outside the EU from seeing links to information that operators have been ordered to take down.
Peter Fleischer, Google's senior privacy counsel, welcomed the ruling, saying in a statement: "Since 2014, we've worked hard to implement the right to be forgotten in Europe, and to strike a sensible balance between people's rights of access to information, and privacy. It's good to see that the court agreed with our arguments, and we're grateful to the independent human rights organisations, media associations and many others around the world who also presented their views to the court."
The Court of Justice was ruling on two cases between Google and the French data protection authority, CNIL.
Following the court's ruling in 2014, CNIL had ordered Google to remove links to information that breached EU data protection rules from results on all its search engines, regardless of whether the domain names were based in the EU. Google removed links only on its search engines with EU domain names. CNIL fined Google €100,000 for failing to comply with the ruling.
In a separate case, CNIL ordered Google to take down links to websites that contained information about four individuals in the public domain and that breached EU protections on sexual activities and criminal records.
"This is the right decision by the Court of Justice," said Richard Cumbley, a partner and global head of technology at Linklaters. "Applying this right on a global basis would have created a difficult and possibly irreconcilable clash between EU concepts of privacy and U.S. concepts of freedom of speech. It would also have encouraged other states to suppress search results on a global basis, which would have a serious impact on freedom of information."
In the three years after the ECJ ruling, Google received 2.4 million requests for links to be removed and it delisted links in 43% of requests.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAfrican Law Firm Under Investigation For AI-Generated Case References
3 minute readMed Mal Defense Win Stands as State Appeals Court Rejects Arguments Over Blocked Cross-Examination
Indiana AG Accuses Big Pharma of Inflating EpiPens Price by 600%, Lawsuit Says
4 minute readAd Agency Legal Chief Scores $12M Golden Parachute in $13B Sale to Rival
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250