ECJ may extend "right to be forgotten" ruling outside the EU

The three year legal battle between Google and France is nearly at its end

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) will rule on whether the 2014 "right to be forgotten" decision, compelling Google to comply with EU citizens' requests to be removed from search results, should be extended out of EU borders.

It's the culmination of a three year battle between France and Google. France wants the 2014 ruling to be applied universally, so that a user's personal information is removed from worldwide search results, not just within the EU. The French Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Liberts (CNIL) wants Google to go further which means French standards may have to be implemented on all Google search sites.

Advertisement - Article continues below

On the other hand, Google has said that extending this right beyond the EU would pose a risk in countries with stronger limits on freedom of speech and may even extend those limits universally as well. Google is worried that non-democratic countries may demand the same global power and that one country should not have the right to impose its rules on the citizens of another.

Peter Fleischer, global privacy counsel at Google, told IT Pro: "Since 2014, we've worked hard to implement the 'right to be forgotten' ruling thoughtfully and comprehensively in Europe. For the last 18 months, we've been defending the idea that each country should be able to balance freedom of expression and privacy in the way that it chooses, not in the way that another country chooses.

Advertisement
Advertisement - Article continues below

"We're doing this because we want to ensure that people have access to content that is legal in their country. We look forward to making our case at the European Court of Justice."

Advertisement - Article continues below

In the landmark 2014 case, the ECJ ruled that Google was required to remove all personal information that appears on its search engine. The ECJ found that search engines were "controllers" of personal data whereas Google had argued it simply hosted the content, rather than endorsing it. Exemptions to the rule included those who are prominent in the public eye, such as celebrities or politicians. This means that Google has to respond to any and all requests to remove private information that plaintiffs consider to be harmful.

Now, as reported by the Guardian, the ECJ will be asked to be more specific with its initial ruling and state whether sites have to delete links only in the country that requests it, or whether it's in the EU or globally.

Featured Resources

Key considerations for implementing secure telework at scale

Identifying the security risks and advanced requirements of a remote workforce

Download now

The State of Salesforce 2020

Your guide to getting the most from Salesforce

Download now

Fast, flexible and compliant e-signatures for global businesses

Be at the forefront of digital transformation with electronic signatures

Download now

Rethink your cybersecurity strategy for the new world

5 steps to secure the enterprise and be fit for a flexible future

Download now
Advertisement

Recommended

Google Drive vs Microsoft OneDrive head-to-head review
cloud storage

Google Drive vs Microsoft OneDrive head-to-head review

12 Aug 2020
The House of Lords will never bring tech giants to book
IT regulation

The House of Lords will never bring tech giants to book

8 Aug 2020
Google Cloud and Orange team up on AI and cloud computing
cloud computing

Google Cloud and Orange team up on AI and cloud computing

28 Jul 2020
Google to build subsea data cable linking the UK, US and Spain
Network & Internet

Google to build subsea data cable linking the UK, US and Spain

28 Jul 2020

Most Popular

How to find RAM speed, size and type
Laptops

How to find RAM speed, size and type

3 Aug 2020
How to use Chromecast without Wi-Fi
Mobile

How to use Chromecast without Wi-Fi

4 Aug 2020
Police use of facial recognition ruled unlawful in the UK
privacy

Police use of facial recognition ruled unlawful in the UK

11 Aug 2020