EU court says people may remove unflattering links from Google

Google makes it too easy to dig up someone's past, according to the EU's highest court. It ruled Tuesday that Google must honor some requests to remove links from its search engine.

Alan Diaz/AP/File
The Google logo at a store in Hialeah, Fla. Europe's highest court ruled Tuesday that Google and other search engines must limit personal information provided in search results.

People's bad decisions should not follow them forever online, says the European Union's highest court in a decision on Tuesday. The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled that, in certain cases, users may demand that Google remove information about them from its search engine. 

While the decision only affects users in Europe, it forces Google, Microsoft, and other websites to reconsider their mostly one-size-fits-all global privacy standards. Google routinely takes down material that violates copyright or defamation laws. But the new ruling targets links to truthful yet unflattering information, such as legal records and newspaper articles. 

The case revolves around Mario Costeja Gonzalez, a lawyer in Spain, who sued Google to take down links related to a house of his that was repossessed in 1998. That information was no longer relevant, he argued, and should not appear when people searched for his name online.

The court agrees. Google searches made it too easy to uncover a "vast number of aspects of his private life," according to the ruling, and "without the search engine, the information could not have been interconnected or could have been only with great difficulty." For this reason, newspaper archives and court documents will remain online, but people may now request that the material no longer show up in search results. If researchers wanted to find the removed information, they would need to comb through each website individually.

"This is a disappointing ruling for search engines and online publishers in general," Google spokesman Al Verney says in a statement. "We are very surprised that it differs so dramatically from the [EU] Advocate General's opinion and the warnings and consequences that he spelled out."

Tuesday's decision does not require Google to respond to each takedown request. However, if the search engine does not remove the offending links, individuals may appeal to European regulators. Also, the European Court of Justice did not lay out the exact criteria for which links may be scrubbed from Google's search index. It left that task to national courts and lawmakers.

Europe has long debated establishing a "right to be forgotten" that would allow people to not only delete search engine listings, but also information and photos on social media sites such as Facebook. 

For more on how technology intersects daily life, follow Chris on Twitter @venturenaut.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.