Skip to content
Google defies French 'right to be forgotten' ruling
Naked Security Naked Security

Google defies French global ‘right to be forgotten’ ruling

Google is set to defy a French data authority ruling on the global removal of right to be forgotten links.

Google defies French 'right to be forgotten' rulingLast month the French data protection authority – the Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) – told Google that successful right to be forgotten requests made by Europeans should be applied across all of the company’s search engines, not just those in Europe.

In response, Google yesterday gave its unequivocal answer to that request: “Non!”

Writing on the company’s Google Europe blog, Peter Fleischer, Global Privacy Counsel, explained how the search giant had complied with the original “right to delist” ruling – which gives EU citizens the right to ask internet search engines to remove embarrassing, sensitive or inaccurate results for search queries that include their name – made by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2014.

That cooperation, he said, had already led to the processing of over a quarter of a million removal requests pertaining to over a million web pages.

While I get the impression that Google is far from happy about having to police the links it indexes, Fleischer appeared to be philosophical about the matter, accepting that the law is the law in Europe.

He was, however, keen to point out that the right to be forgotten ruling was not global in nature and that any move to make it so would be “a troubling development that risks serious chilling effects on the web”.

Citing examples of how laws can vary widely between different nations, Fleischer highlighted Russia and its outlawing of any speech which could be deemed to be in favour of homosexuality; legislation in Thailand that makes it an offence to criticise its monarch; and Turkey where it is illegal to utter disparaging remarks about Atatürk, the country’s first president.

If the French ruling were to be taken up by other nations – CNIL is currently in negotiations with data protection regulators from all 28 EU member states over just that – the consequences could be severe, he said:

If the CNIL's proposed approach were to be embraced as the standard for internet regulation, we would find ourselves in a race to the bottom. In the end, the internet would only be as free as the world's least free place.

We believe that no one country should have the authority to control what content someone in a second country can access. We also believe this order is disproportionate and unnecessary, given that the overwhelming majority of French internet users - currently around 97% - access a European version of Google's search engine like, rather than or any other version of Google.

Fleischer ended the blog post by reiterating Google’s efforts in working with data protection authorities but made it clear that the company disagreed with CNIL’s ruling and had asked the agency to withdraw its threat of sanctions.

According to the BBC, the French regulator said it was aware of Google’s “political” statement and would reply within the next two months.

Fortunately for Google, CNIL can only go so far with that legal reasoning – the agency can only hand out fines of up to €150,000 (£105,500 or $164,500) for non-compliance with its rulings.

Of greater concern to Google would be the threat of further legal action, not only in France, but also elsewhere in a European Union that appears to have formed a consensus under the Article 29 Working Party, an amalgam of EU data protection regulators who, in November, wrote:

Limiting delisting to EU domains on the grounds that users tend to access search engines via their national domains cannot be considered a sufficient means to satisfactorily guarantee the [privacy] rights of data subjects...this means that in any case de-listing should also be effective on all relevant domains, including .com.

Meanwhile, some non-European countries are also looking to interpret their own versions of the ‘right to be forgotten’ ruling. A Canadian court, for instance, recently forced Google to de-index a Canadian company’s competitor across every one of its search engines, while Russia pushes ahead with its own equivalent ruling, administered by state communications watchdog Roskomnadzor.

Image of Google search engine courtesy of pixinoo / Shutterstock.


I discovered recently that references to the headmaster of a school I attended in the seventies which touched on his beating children had been removed in Europe, despite the fact that he had already been dead for several years. These references were from respectable published books that can be found on Google books. Right-wing educationalists still put this monstrous and violent man forward as a role model for educators, so surely the fact that he was capricious bully is a matter of great public importance? But under these EU rules even this long-dead thug has a right to be forgotten. How can this be in the public interest?


Progress is made one funeral at a time… These stupid rulings will no longer be a problem is 30 years from now when the people born with the Internet will be the one writing the laws instead of the current computer illiterate people.


“To those who can hear me, I say, do not despair:
The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed,
The bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress.
The hate of men will pass, and dictators die
And the power they took from the people will return to the people
And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.
Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men,
Machine men with machine minds and machine hearts!
You are not machines, you are not cattle, you are men!
You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful,
To make this life a wonderful adventure.
Let us use that power!
Let us all unite!”
(From The Great Dictator)


This will be the death of Google as “the” search giant. When a search engine can no longer deliver complete and accurate search results, what can it do? People will drift to one of many other search engines available. And it’s not even their fault, whatever you may thing of Google, this most likely cause of their demise was not brought on by themselves.

No wonder Page and Brin segregated their company into an umbrella corp, so that when Google the search engine dies all their cool research companies will be somewhat insulated from the fallout.

How can people really expect to be ‘forgotten’ anyway? The internet never forgets. Are the courts going to extend their rulings to Bing, Yahoo, Duckduckgo, Baidu (good luck with that one), Yandex, or the individual media companies, bloggers, public forums who actually host this information? It is trivial to find this stuff from other sources, and the concept of being “forgotten” by Google is a fallacy – providing false sense of privacy and wasting tax payer funds, and everyone’s time.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to get the latest updates in your inbox.
Which categories are you interested in?
You’re now subscribed!