Google Scores Major Victory in 'Right to Be Forgotten' Case in EU's Highest Court
The Court of Justice has ruled that search engines such as Google do not have to remove links in so-called "right-to-be-forgotten" cases.
September 24, 2019 at 06:33 AM
3 minute read
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
© 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 All‘Are You Not Profiting From Postmasters’ Misery?’—Politicians Grill HSF, Dentons on Post Office Conduct
'Not a Good Look'—FCA Fines Barclays £40M But Accused of Incompetence
Gibson Dunn Sued by Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
Australian Corporations More Concerned About Class Actions Risk, HSF Report Finds
3 minute readTrending Stories
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