The “right to be forgotten” lets people in the EU ask search engines to stop showing certain results when their name is searched. It is not automatic. Each request turns on a balancing of your privacy against the public’s interest in information, and the practical steps below are the ones that matter most.
Where the right comes from
The idea took shape in the Court of Justice of the European Union’s Google Spain ruling of 13 May 2014. That ruling required a search engine, under the old data protection directive, to remove links to third-party pages from name-based results in certain circumstances.
Since the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) took effect on 24 May 2018, the right has been written into Article 17, headed “Right to erasure (right to be forgotten)”. It is not limited to search engines. In principle it can be asserted against any organisation that processes your personal data. In practice, though, most public attention goes to search engine “delisting”.
What the courts have clarified
Several rulings since 2018 shape what you can realistically expect.
- Territory. In 2019 the EU’s top court held that the right applies within the EU. Search engines generally do not have to remove links on non-EU versions such as Google.com.
- No automatic right. In a ruling of 27 July 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) found there is no general right to be forgotten. Each case needs a full weighing of fundamental rights. The court rejected the claim in the case before it, where a former manager wanted older press reports about him delisted.
- Press and public interest. The GDPR exempts processing that is necessary for freedom of expression and information. Reports on matters of real public concern, such as a charity’s financial difficulties, are therefore hard to remove.
- Clearly false information. In a judgment of December 2022 (C-460/20), the EU court held that a search engine must delist results when the person shows that the information is manifestly false.
The BGH also indicated that a search engine’s duty to act does not begin only when a violation is obvious at first glance. The operator has to examine a substantiated complaint properly.
How to ask Google to delist a result
- Collect the exact URLs of the pages you want removed from results for your name. Only results that appear on a name search are covered.
- Use the search engine’s own online removal form. Google has offered one since the 2014 ruling. Bing and Yahoo have comparable forms.
- Explain your reasons. Say why each result is outdated, irrelevant, inaccurate or otherwise objectionable. Specific, documented reasons carry more weight than general dislike of the coverage.
- Wait for the decision. The search engine weighs your privacy against public interest and tells you the outcome, with reasons if it refuses.
Delisting does not delete the page itself. The content stays online at its original address. It simply becomes harder to find through a search for your name. If you want the content itself removed, you must go to the site that publishes it.
What tends to succeed, and what does not
Google’s own published guidance describes the typical pattern. Requests involving government ID numbers, bank account numbers, images of signatures or intimate images are usually granted. Basic details such as addresses or phone numbers are normally not removed. Material on official government sites is also usually kept.
Context matters. The examples Google gave when the process began included a teacher’s decade-old minor conviction, which was delisted. They also included a request by an official to remove a petition calling for his dismissal, which was refused. Time passed, the person’s public role and how serious the matter is all feed into the decision.
If your request is refused
A refusal is not final. You can complain to your national data protection authority, which can examine whether the search engine weighed the case properly. You can also go to court. Authorities typically look at whether you gave complete information, whether you are personally affected by the named URLs, whether the results really appear on a name search, and how strong the public interest is.
Because outcomes depend heavily on the facts, consider getting advice from a lawyer who specialises in data protection or media law before litigating. Doing so is especially sensible if the content involves allegations, reporting on a criminal matter, or business reputation.
Criticism that has not gone away
Critics note that a private company makes the first decision on a balance between privacy and free expression, without being bound by press freedom in the way a court or public authority is. Others argue that removing results from name searches amounts to a quiet form of censorship, since content that cannot be found is, in effect, hard to read. Supporters reply that the original page stays online, and that the right protects people from being permanently defined by outdated or false information.
Quick answers
Does a successful request remove the article from the internet?
No. Only the link in results for a name search disappears. The article remains on its original site.
Do I have to prove I was harmed?
Not as a rule. What counts is whether your interest in privacy outweighs the public’s interest in finding the information, which depends on the specific facts.