European Right to be Deleted Upheld by CJEU, Tells Google to Remove Links
Thursday 15 May 2014 @ 12.28 p.m. | IP & Media | Legal Research
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has handed down a decision upholding the controversial “right to be deleted” that could change the way search engines and other internet intermediaries operate. The ruling (Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos (AEPD), Mario Costeja Gonzalez) upholds the argument of privacy supporters, who say that people should be able to remove material from the internet that they believe infringes their privacy. But free speech advocates, as well as the companies involved, say that removal threatens freedom of expression. Search engines and other online intermediaries are also concerned that it could dramatically increase costs and change the way we use the internet.
Facts
The case concerned a Spanish man, Mario Costeja Gonzalez. In 1998 his property was subject to an auction to pay off his debts, and two notices about this were published in La Vanguardia, a Spanish newspaper. Years later, he asked the Spanish Data Protection Agency (the "AEPD"), which is a Spanish government agency, to order the take down of the notices and the removal of links from Google to the newspaper’s website. Slate reported that:
“The agency refused the first request because the newspaper had published the notices by court order. But it granted the second, telling Google to remove the links.”
Decision
The decision was challenged by Google Spain and Google Inc. Much of the case involved technical arguments about whether Google is a “data controller” under the data protection laws of Spain and other Eastern European countries. The Guardian says that:
“The ruling makes clear that a search engine such as Google has to take responsibility as a “data controller” for the content that it links to and may be required to purge its results even if the material was previously published legally.” (emphasis added)
The CJEU found that there was a “balancing public interest defence against deletion, especially if the individual is involved in public life.” However, they found that data that could “appear to be inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant or excessive… in the light of the time that had elapsed”, should be erased if the individual wished.
Reaction
Mr Gonzalez told the Guardian that:
“I was fighting for the elimination of data that adversely affects people's honour, dignity and exposes their private lives. Everything that undermines human beings, that's not freedom of expression.”
The European Union justice commissioner, Viviane Reding, posted on Facebook that:
"The ruling confirms the need to bring today’s data protection rules from the ‘digital stone age’ into today’s modern computing world."
Google called the case “a disappointing ruling for search engines and online publishers in general”, particularly given that a non-binding opinion from the Advocate General last year had supported Google’s argument that deleting information interfered with freedom of expression.
The case has the potential to create a number of technical difficulties and increase costs for Google and other companies who could be considered “data processers”. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, there are 220 more cases waiting in Spain that are along similar lines.
In Australia, the Law Reform Commission has recommended a similar “right to be deleted”, although it would only apply to information posted by the person requiring deletion, not that uploaded by third parties.
Ironically, Googling Mario Costeja Gonzalez’ name now takes you to links about the case that all reference the notices he wanted taken down, which demonstrates the somewhat bizarre outcomes produced by the intersection of law and ever-changing technology.
TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.
