The right to be forgotten and the removal of information that may disproportionately impact the lives of individuals

Last week, an individual won his legal action against Google in connection with what is known as the “right to be forgotten” in a UK High Court case.

The right to be forgotten (also referred to as the right to erasure) is a precedent set by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2014. It allows people to request information (about them) to be removed where it is no longer relevant but disproportionately impacts their lives. Search engines can decline to remove such pages if they declare their content to be in the public interest. Google have mentioned that since 2014 there have been 655,000 requests, demanding the removal of almost 2.5 million links.

The individual (referred only as “NT2”) won his legal action to compel Google to remove search results about past criminal convictions. NT2 was convicted of conspiring to intercept communications 10 years ago and spent 6 years in jail as a result. A separate claim brought against Google at the same time by another individual (referred to as “NT1”) was dismissed by the court on the basis that the crime he committed was more serious and therefore the information about his crime should not be removed. Google’s legal representative stated that Google will not allow people to re-write “history” or “tailor [their] past”.

As a result of the ruling, Google (who have generally been reluctant to honour “right to be forgotten”) requests will now be required to remove any historical articles about the businessman intercepting communications in the past. Google has confirmed that it will accept the ruling.

The General Data Protection Rules (GDPR) which comes into force in May this year will incorporate the right to be forgotten under Article 17. The right is not absolute and only applies in certain circumstances including where the personal data is no longer necessary for the purpose it was originally collected for, where consent to hold the data is withdrawn or where the personal data has been processed unlawfully. Parties holding such data that is the subject of such a request shall have one month to respond to it.

Tate Chakrabarty

Tate Chakrabarty                                            
Associate Solicitor
Corporate and Commercial Team                   
0113 227 9260  

This entry was posted in Company & Commercial Law. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s