As the requests for web links to be deleted mount following the Google ‘right to be forgotten’ ruling, information law expert Dr Alan McKenna questions who should be deciding what is removed?
‘Reports in the media this week have highlighted how for some public relations (PR) companies the so-called ‘right to be forgotten’ judgment in May from the Court of Justice of the European Union has proved to be a financial money spinner, with many clients of such companies looking to these companies to help in having web links to material that relates to them removed.
‘Whilst generally known as the ‘right to be forgotten’ following the judgment, this is widely accepted as being an inaccurate description, and rather the ruling provides a right of deletion of web links in circumstances under European Data Protection law where the information in question is for example out of date, irrelevant or inadequate. The decision of the Court of Justice has been welcomed by some as providing the right balance between privacy of the individual and freedom of expression, whilst others see the decision as a move towards a form of internet censorship.
‘The emergence of the use of PR companies by the well-heeled, raises problematic questions regarding the deletion of web links. The PR company clients are clearly paying for results and will expect nothing less than the complete removal of the links so that a web search will no longer bring up the specific material relating to them. It may be questioned whether there will be situations in which the less affluent may find their deletion requests rejected, which are similar in nature to ones accepted by Google, which have been made by PR companies on their clients behalf, who are able to use their greater experience and particular persuasive techniques to ensure removal takes place.
‘Google, which has about 90% of the search engine market in Europe, is seeking a wider debate on the implications of the judgment, and is currently holding a 7 European city roadshow tour, with selected experts debating the relevant issues.
‘To place the administrative burden of deciding what is removed and what requests will be rejected on Google and other search engine companies in the first instance is arguably problematic. For those whose requests are rejected, an appeal can be made to the national data protection regulator, but it would seem perhaps more sensible if removal request were made direct to the regulator in the first place. This might help prevent discrepancies in the decision making process between similar cases for example. It would also prevent situations where different search engine companies come to differing conclusions about specific requests to delete or not. However, the implications of moving the administrative burden on to the national regulator and away from the search companies is also problematic, in that additional resources would need to be made available by states to the regulator to carry out this role, and where spending public money is concerned we know there is widespread reluctance especially when it can be outsourced to private organisations.’
Dr McKenna is an Associate Lecturer in Law at Kent Law School. His research interests include the information society, communication law, information law, media, human rights, information technology law, international commercial law, data protection, privacy and asbestos-related issues.
For further details of Dr McKenna’s research interests and publications, visit his staff profile page.