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
© 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 AllJones Day, BCLP & Other Major Firms Boost European Teams with Key Partner Hires
4 minute read$13.8 Billion Magomedov Claim Thrown Out by UK High Court
Trending Stories
- 1South Florida Attorney Charged With Aggravated Battery After Incident in Prime Rib Line
- 2'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 3Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 4‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 5State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
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