Top EU Court to Issue 'Right to be Forgotten' Ruling in Google Case
The ruling comes at a time when tensions have been rising worldwide between the protection of an individual's data and freedom of speech. It also highlights the clash between EU regulators and U.S. tech companies.
September 23, 2019 at 03:01 PM
4 minute read
In a case that pits privacy and the "right to be forgotten" against the right of free speech, the European Union's top court is expected to issue a landmark ruling on Tuesday that will determine whether Google must remove links to sensitive personal data worldwide or just in Europe.
In a second related case, the Luxembourg-based European Union Court of Justice will also rule on whether links to websites that contain allegations about individuals' sex lives or criminal records should also be removed.
The rulings are seen as a test case of the tensions rising worldwide between the protection of an individual's data and freedom of speech. They also highlight the clash between EU regulators and U.S. tech companies.
The first case stems from a dispute between Google and France's privacy watchdog, CNIL, which in 2015 told Google to remove sensitive information from internet search results globally when asked to do so, in accordance with its 'right to be forgotten' law.
Google challenged the ruling, and the French court turned to the European Court of Justice for guidance.
In January of this year, Google welcomed the news that EU advocate general Maciej Szpunar had issued an advisory opinion to the EU Court, saying the right to be forgotten should only be enforced in Europe and not globally. Judges often follow such non-binding opinions, but not always.
The legal conflict has broad implications for the fate of the internet, at a time when the world is increasingly focused on privacy protections.
"It creates a huge clash between the irresistible force of EU data protection law and the immovable rock of U.S. freedom of speech," said Peter Church, a privacy expert at Linklaters in London.
But if U.S. citizens were to be prevented by EU data protection laws from seeing search results, it would be "a step too far", he said.
Currently, Google in Europe has to remove all links that appear in its global search results if individuals ask them to be deleted under EU data protection rules. According to a Google report, the company removed 45% of the 3.3 million links from 845,501 requests received in the last five years – since the 'right to be forgotten' law took effect in Europe in 2014.
But that law left open the question of whether the right to be forgotten only applied in the EU or was a global right. This is what the EU Court of Justice is expected to decide on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, Google has been using geoblocking technology in the EU's 28-member bloc to remove links to information that breaches EU data laws. But users outside the EU can still see the contested results.
In a separate but connected case, the EU court has also been asked to rule on whether links to websites that make damaging claims about individuals' sex lives or criminal records should also be removed.
Four individuals had asked CNIL, the French data protection authority, to demand that Google remove the links found in internet searches using their names – a request the French agency rejected. The material in question included a satirical photomontage of a female politician; an article referring to someone as a public relations officer of the Church of Scientology; the placing under investigation of a male politician; and the conviction of someone for sexual assaults against minors.
In his advisory opinion issued in January, the advocate general said that prohibitions on processing certain types of data should also apply to the operators of search engines.
While in the U.S. freedom of speech usually takes precedence, judges in London and Paris have ruled in favour of individuals asking to have unflattering information removed or suppressed in internet search results.
Google, which is the leading search engine in Europe, is also facing other obstacles in Europe. The European Commission has fined the company billions of euros for antitrust violations.
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
© 2024 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 AllAshurst Beijing Chief Representative Leaves for New York Boutique Sterlington
Baker McKenzie, Norton Rose & Other Top Litigators Foresee Rise in AI, Data & ESG Disputes
Axiom-Ince: SFO Charges Five, Including Former Head, Following Investigation
3 minute readSDT Upholds SLAPP Claim Against Osborne Clarke Partner Advising Nadhim Zahawi
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Remembering Am Law 100 Firm Founder and 'Force of Nature' Stephen Cozen
- 2Attorneys 'On the Move': Structured Finance Attorney Joins Hunton Andrews Kurth; Foley Adds IP Partner
- 3Suspended NY Judge Who Threatened to Shoot Black Party Crashers Says She Won't Fight Removal
- 4Kelly Hart Secures $27M Trade Secrets Misappropriation Final Judgment in Fort Worth Trial
- 5How Legal Research And Analytics Changed in 2024
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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