The so-called \u2018right to be forgotten\u2019 \u2014 which is perhaps better described as \u2018the right to erasure\u2019 or \u2018the right to be de-listed\u2019 \u2014 entails a right to request commercial search engines, such as Google, to remove links to private information when asked. \u00a0The right to be forgotten progresses from the idea that the right to private life includes a right for past information about oneself, where there is no public interest in accessing, not to be profiled prominently on search results, even though the information will normally remain available on the websites where it is being held.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The leading case on this was decided in 2014, when the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU<\/a>) handed down its ruling in the case of Google Spain v Gonzalez<\/em><\/a>.[footnote]Google Spain SL and Another v Agencia Espa\u00f1ola de Protecci\u00f3n de Datos (AEPD) and Another<\/em>, Case No. C-131\/12, 13 May 2014 (accessible at: https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/?uri=CELEX%3A62012CJ0131<\/a>).[\/footnote] Mr Gonzalez, a Spanish national, lodged a complaint in 2010 with the Spanish information regulator. \u00a0The cause of Mr Gonzalez\u2019s complaint was that, when an internet user entered his name into Google\u2019s search engine, the user would obtain links to pages of a Spanish newspaper from 1998 referring to attachment proceedings against him for the recovery of certain debts. \u00a0Mr Gonzalez requested that the personal data relating to him be removed or concealed because the proceedings against him had been fully resolved and the reference to him was therefore now prejudicial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The CJEU upheld the claim, relying on the EU data protection law in effect at the time. \u00a0The CJEU noted that the very display of personal information on a search results page constitutes processing of such information,[footnote]Id<\/em> at para 57.[\/footnote] and there was no reason why a search engine should not be subject to the obligations and guarantees laid out under the law.[footnote]Id<\/em> at para 58.[\/footnote] Further, it was noted that the processing of personal information carried out by a search engine could significantly affect the fundamental rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data when a search is carried out using a person\u2019s name, as it enables any internet user to obtain a structured overview of information relating to that individual and establish a profile of the person.[footnote]Id<\/em> at para 80.[\/footnote] According to the CJEU, the effect of the interference \u201cis heightened taking into account the important role played by the internet and search engines in modern society, which render the information contained in such a list of results ubiquitous.\u201d[footnote]Id.<\/em>[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n The CJEU went on to hold that a data subject is permitted to request that information about him or her no longer be included in a list of search results where, having regard to all the circumstances, the information appears to be inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to purposes of the processing carried out by the operator of the search engine, taking into account the public interest in accessing it.[footnote]Id<\/em>. at para 94.[\/footnote] In such circumstances, the information should be delinked from search engine results.[footnote]Id<\/em>. at para 94.[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n The right to be forgotten has also been recognised in domestic contexts. \u00a0For instance, Italy\u2019s Supreme Court of Cassation has held that the public interest in an article diminished after two and a half years, and that sensitive private information should not be available to the public indefinitely.[footnote]Plaintiff X v PrimaDaNoi<\/em>, Case No. 13161, 22 November 2015 (accessible at: https:\/\/globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu\/cases\/plaintiff-x-v-primadanoi\/<\/a>).[\/footnote] The case was brought before the European Court of Human Rights, which found the restriction on freedom of expression to be justifiable after declining to interfere with Italy\u2019s Supreme Court of Cassation\u2019s balancing of this right with the right to respect for one\u2019s private life.[footnote]Application no.\u00a077419\/16<\/a> (2022) at 69-70 (accessible at: https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22Biancardi%20v.%20Italy%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-213827%22<\/a>).[\/footnote] The Belgian Court of Cassation has also recognised the right to be forgotten.[footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n P.H. v O.G.<\/em>, Case No. 15\/0052\/F, 29 April 2016 (accessible at: https:\/\/www.huntonprivacyblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/18\/2016\/06\/download_blob.pdf<\/a>). For a discussion of the case, see Hunton & Williams, \u2018Belgian Court of Cassation rules on right to be forgotten\u2019, 1 June 2016 (accessible at: https:\/\/www.huntonprivacyblog.com\/2016\/06\/01\/belgian-court-of-cassation-rules-on-right-to-be-forgotten\/<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n For more on the right to be forgotten, see NT1 & NT2 v Google LLC<\/em> in the UK (2018) (accessible at: https:\/\/www.judiciary.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/nt1-nt2-v-google-press-summary-180413.pdf<\/a>).[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are, however, limits to the ambit of the right to be forgotten. \u00a0In 2017, the CJEU was seized with a request for a preliminary ruling in the case of Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Lecce v Salvatore Manni<\/em>.<\/a>[footnote]Case No. C-385-15, 9 March 2017 (accessible at: https:\/\/curia.europa.eu\/juris\/document\/document.jsf?text=&docid=188750&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=446798<\/a>).[\/footnote] Mr Manni, relying on the Gonzalez <\/em>decision, sought an order requiring the Chamber of Commerce to erase, anonymise or block any data in the register of companies linking him to the liquidation of his company. \u00a0The CJEU declined to uphold Mr Manni\u2019s request and held that in light of the range of possible legitimate uses of data in companies registers and the different limitation periods applicable to such records, it was impossible to identify a suitable maximum retention period. \u00a0Accordingly, the CJEU declined to find that there is a general right to be forgotten from public company registers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, other jurisdictions have refused to uphold a right to be forgotten vis-\u00e0-vis search engines. \u00a0In Brazil, for example, it was held that search engines cannot be compelled to remove search results relating to a specific term or expression;[footnote]Ministra Nancy Andrighi v Google Brasil Internet Ltd and Others<\/em>, 2011\/0307909-6, 26 June 2012 (accessible at: https:\/\/www.internetlab.org.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/STJ-REsp-1316921.pdf<\/a>).[\/footnote] similarly, the Supreme Court of Japan declined to enforce the right to be forgotten against Google, finding that deletion \u201ccan be allowed only when the value of privacy protection significantly outweighs that of information disclosure\u201d.[footnote]The Japan Times, \u2018Top court rejects \u2018right to be forgotten\u2019 demand\u2019, 1 February 2017 (accessible at: https:\/\/www.japantimes.co.jp\/news\/2017\/02\/01\/national\/crime-legal\/top-court-rejects-right-forgotten-demand\/#.WqZQXehubIV<\/a>).[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In India, the law on the right to be forgotten remains unsettled. Certain judicial decisions have given effect to the right to be forgotten as a corollary of the right to privacy. For example, the Orissa High Court of the state of Odisha[footnote]Subhranshu Rout v. State of Odisha<\/em>, High Court of Orissa, BLAPL No.4592 of 2020 (2020), (accessible at: https:\/\/globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/Official-Judgment.pdf<\/a>).[\/footnote] and the High Court of Kerala[footnote]The Case of the Rape Survivor\u2019s Right to Be Forgotten, Kerala High Court in the Civil Writ Petition No. 9478 of 2016 (2017), as summarised by Columbia Freedom of Expression due to absence of availability of original decision (accessible at: https:\/\/globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu\/cases\/the-case-of-the-rape-survivors-right-to-be-forgotten-india\/<\/a>).[\/footnote] both found that survivors of sexual violence have a right to have certain online information removed (in the former case non-consensual images in the form of uploaded videos and photos and in the latter case identifying information in a judgment). In 2021, the High Court of Delhi issued an order to block search results for a judgment posted online relating a charge of which the petitioner had been acquitted.[footnote]Jorawar Singh Mundy v. Union of India and Others<\/em>, (2021) W.P. (C) 3918\/ 2020 (2021) (accessible at: https:\/\/www.livelaw.in\/pdf_upload\/16186364774292021-393948.pdf<\/a>).[\/footnote] In contrast, in 2017, the High Court of Gujarat rejected a similar petition for the removal of a judgment.[footnote]Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave v. State of Gujarat, <\/em>Special Civil Application No. 1854 of 2015 (2017), (accessible at: https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/156866860\/<\/a>).[\/footnote] To date, India continues to lack a comprehensive legislative framework governing the right to be forgotten, although proposed legislation in the form of the Personal Data Protection Bill<\/em>, first introduced in 2019, includes provisions codifying this right.[footnote]Ipleaders, Rachit Garg, \u2018Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 and the right to be forgotten\u2019 (2022), (accessible at: https:\/\/blog.ipleaders.in\/personal-data-protection-bill-2019-and-the-right-to-be-forgotten\/#:~:text=The%20right%20to%20be%20forgotten%2C%20is%20the%20right%20of%20the,it%20is%20no%20longer%20needed<\/a> ).[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Article 19\u2019s Global Principles of Freedom of Expression and Privacy (Global Principles<\/a>),[footnote]The Global Principles (accessible at: https:\/\/www.article19.org\/data\/files\/medialibrary\/38657\/Expression-and-Privacy-Principles-1.pdf<\/a>)\u00a0 were developed by civil society, led by ARTICLE19, in cooperation with high-level experts from around the world.[\/footnote] the right \u2014 to the extent that it is recognised in a particular jurisdiction \u2014 should be limited to the \u201cright of individuals to request search engines to delist inaccurate or out-of-date search results produced on the basis of a search for their name.\u201d[footnote]Principle 18(1) of the Global Principles.[\/footnote] It states further that de-listing requests should be \u201csubject to ultimate adjudication by a court or independent adjudicatory body with relevant expertise in freedom of expression and data protection law.\u201d[footnote]Id<\/em> at principle 18(2).[\/footnote]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The so-called \u2018right to be forgotten\u2019 \u2014 which is perhaps better described as \u2018the right to erasure\u2019 or \u2018the right to be de-listed\u2019 \u2014 entails a right to request commercial search engines, such as Google, to remove links to private information when asked. \u00a0The right to be forgotten progresses from the idea that the right […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"parent":927,"menu_order":98,"template":"page-templates\/chapter.php","publication-category":[],"class_list":["post-931","publication","type-publication","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n