Many were worried that the Right To Be Forgotten’s Top Court Ruling Was going to bring the law across the pond but as of September 24, 2019, the court denied the ruling and said cases are only elected to Europe and not the United States.

On September 24, 2019, a top court in Europe made a ruling as to whether Alphabet Inc. Unit Google is required to get rid of links to sensitive and personal data globally or only in Europe. This is an interesting case that pits the right of free speech against privacy rights.

There is another related row that is before the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ), which is located in Luxembourg. This issue involves whether or not Google has to get rid of search results that have sensitive information on an individual. This includes details on his or her criminal convictions, sex life, and any other information that could be potentially damaging to the reputation of the individual.

The cases are intended to test the right of the region to have its laws extended beyond its borders. Legal observers have expressed concerns that a ruling that is not in favor of Google could even encourage authoritarian governments to request the removal of any subject matter they wish to have removed.

The first case is focused on the dispute Google has with CNIL, which is essentially a privacy watchdog in France. In 2015, CNIL told the United States-based Google to delist sensitive material from internet search results worldwide upon request from the affected individuals or entity in a situation that is dubbed the “right to be forgotten.”

Google was fined €100,000 (US$110,200) by CNIL because the former said no to the request. The ruling was challenged by Google at the Council of State in France, which has sought guidance from the ECJ. This just shows you how hard Google fights to keep your results online no matter what and why you need to use a top tier reputation management company to help protect yourself.

Earlier this year, Google was victorious in getting the backing of Maciej Szpunar, who is the ECJ court adviser. Szpunar has stated that enforcement of the “right to be forgotten” should only be in Europe and not all across the globe. It is important to note that such non-binding opinions are followed by judges in four out of every five cases.

Richard Cumbley, who partners at the law firm Linklaters, has said that the issue affects conflicting fundamental rights and as such, it is very important. He went on to state that the case puts a spotlight on the ongoing conflict between the Internet and national laws and the former does not respect national boundaries.

Cumbley further stated that it is unlikely that the court would give global effect to the “right to be forgotten” saga. He believes that this would create a serious clash with the United States’ freedom of speech concepts. In addition, he believes that if this is granted, other states could also attempt and subdue search results on a worldwide basis. This would effectively reduce the Google search engine to a listing of the inoffensive and soothing.

A report from Google showed that the company took down forty-five percent of the 3.3 million links from the 845,501 requests they got in the last 5 years when the “right to be forgotten” was enshrined by the ECJ in the European continent in 2014.

The most popular Internet search engine in the world had earlier warned of the hazards of Europe and its overreaching tactics. Two years ago, the company made a blog post highlighting that balance should be pursued between the interest of the public and sensitive personal data. The post went on to state that no one country should have the capacity to enforce its rules on citizens who are not of that country.

The other case came about when CNIL overruled requests from four individuals to order Google to take down links found in Internet searches that had used their names. The links included the conviction of an individual for sexual assaults against minors; a satirical picture montage of a female politician; information on a male politician being placed under investigation and an article that refers to an individual as a PRO of the Church of Scientology.

Szpunar, in his position of court adviser, has recommended that injunctions on processing particular types of data should apply to search engine operators as well. At a court hearing last year, Google was backed by The European Commission, UK rights group Article 19, Microsoft Corp, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Wikimedia Foundation Inc.