Google Beats Europe at the Right‑to‑Forget Game
Bottom line: If you want your digital past to vanish, you might consider ping‑ponging over to Europe. Google’s latest legal win means it’s only obliged to scrub out troubling info in Europe, not in the rest of the world.
The Court’s Verdict
The European Court of Justice said the right to be forgotten doesn’t automatically apply worldwide. While Google must delete sensitive personal links when European court demands, it can keep them on searches from the United States, Canada, Africa, or anywhere else that isn’t subject to EU jurisdiction.
In two short sentences, the Court highlighted that privacy and free speech aren’t a one‑size‑fits‑all package. The balance between the two depends on local context.
Why This Matters
- It bluntly confirms that EU laws don’t leap over borders.
- Tech giants get a momentary sigh of relief from relentless scrutiny.
- It signals that the world’s search engines need to fine‑tune their compliance groove.
Google’s Reaction
Google didn’t hold its breath waiting for a verdict. “It’s good to see that the court agreed with our arguments,” the company later posted, echoing earlier warnings about European overreach.
Remember the 2014 Origin?
Back in 2014, the same Court put the right to be forgotten on the legal grill, stating that people could ask Google and others to remove outdated or irrelevant data. Fast forward: Google has now received 845,501 removal requests and has scrubbed 45 % of 3.3 million links.
The Takeaway
For the rest of the world, Google’s internet experience remains as resilient as ever. Europe, however, can keep its own safeguard for sensitive data, but the rest of the planet can still pull up that same embarrassing childhood photo if you search for it.
Privacy vs speech
Google’s “Right to Remember”: The UK Courts Review the De‑list Dilemma
What the Decision Means for Privacy vs. Freedom of Information
On Tuesday, UK judges hit the brakes on Google’s “right‑to‑be‑forgotten” push, declaring that the company can still decide whether to scrub certain links from search results. They argued that the balance between protecting personal privacy and upholding public interest must be tuned to local norms – so what happens in the UK may not apply equally across the globe.
Article 19’s Take‑away
- “Cut‑off at the borders”: Article 19 applauds the court case, stressing that farther‑off countries shouldn’t be forced to filter out links they don’t see.
- “Privacy vs. Speech”: Crypto‑punctual quote: the court is right to say privacy and free speech often tug in opposite directions.
- Global nuance: This weighing might shift from place to place – what’s acceptable in Liverpool isn’t in Lima.
Legal Headline from Patrick Van Eecke
Patrick Van Eecke, DLA‑Piper’s global data‑protection chief, points out that the court’s ruling, while generous for Europeans, actually means the “right to be forgotten” is largely limited to EU‑based searches. He warned:
“That’s frustrating for folks who realize that folks outside Europe can still stumble across deleted search terms when they Google from New York or Shanghai,” he said.
The Long Arc of the CNIL Fine
Fast‑forward to 2016: France’s privacy watchdog CNIL slapped Google a €100,000 (S$151,000) fine for refusing to delete sensitive data globally. Google fought back by taking the case to the French Council of State, which in turn sought advice from the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
Separately, CNIL had already decided not to mandate the removal of links about four individuals:
- A satirical photomontage of a female political figure.
- An article labeling someone as a PR officer for the Church of Scientology.
- A report putting a male politician under investigation.
- A conviction for sexual assault against minors.
In a twist of irony, CNIL nodded to Tuesday’s verdict and will comply with the decision, letting Google keep those links (or not, depending on the jurisdiction).
Bottom‑Line: A Fiddle‑Frequent Future
In short, Google can still play the “filter” card, but only within the European market. If you’re outside the EU and feed the same query into Google, watch out for those ever‑present, ever‑flagged results that are deemed “de-listed” locally. The battle between privacy and free speech isn’t over—it’s just going on in a new, slightly less predictable shape.
