EU's top court rules that Google does not have to apply “right to be forgotten” globally
Europe's top court has ruled that Google does not have to apply the right to be forgotten globally. — It means that firm only needs to remove references to articles and other material …
BBC
Context & Ripple Effects
This ruling closes a four-year fight over the geographic reach of Europe's delisting rules. France rejected Google's appeal in 2015 and insisted the right to be forgotten apply worldwide, and the dispute was referred to the EU's top court in 2017 after a French court asked whether one regulator could dictate search results globally.
The direction of travel was already visible: the court's own adviser backed Google in January, arguing search engines shouldn't be forced to apply removals beyond the bloc's borders. Today's judgment makes that the law — Google must delist on EU-relevant results, but not on versions of its search served elsewhere.
First-order effects
Google can now point to a definitive court ruling whenever EU regulators demand global delisting, ending the compliance ambiguity it has operated under since France's 2015 order.
French and EU data-protection authorities lose the enforcement lever they were seeking: a person's removal request will suppress links for EU users while the material stays visible in search results served to the rest of the world.
Second-order effects
Other jurisdictions weighing similar removal regimes must now decide whether to accept territorial limits or build their own cross-border enforcement — the ruling sets the template that one bloc's regulator cannot unilaterally govern the global index.
Search rivals operating in Europe gain the same territorial safe harbor, so competitive pressure shifts from who complies to who delists fastest within the EU's own borders.
Third-order effects
If the pattern holds, data-privacy rights consolidate as territorially bounded: national and regional rules govern what users see inside each jurisdiction, rather than the strictest regime exporting itself worldwide — a structural split in how search results can ever be 'erased'.
The trend: Courts are drawing a hard territorial line around data-privacy rules, capping regulators' ability to project one jurisdiction's removal orders across the global internet.
In the new Google v CNIL, CJEU makes a statement on extraterritorial reach of the GDPR's right to be forgotten. Ruling: Companies do not have to remove links globally when RTBF request is made under EU law. https://www.reuters.com/...
No surprise. Sounds like CJEU applied basic principles of Int'l jurisdiction to the case. No internet exceptionalism cuts both way ways. This is very reminiscent of French Yahoo case in 2000. https://twitter.com/...
'It's not right that one country's data protection authorities can impose interpretation on internet users around the world' - @thomasmhughes @guardian https://www.theguardian.com/ ...
It's the day for landmark judgments. CJEU on the #righttobeforgotten #Google case as to whether it has to remove links to sensitive personal data worldwide or only within the EU. #privacy #freedomofexpression https://twitter.com/...
The European Court of Justice ruling that Europe's Right to Be Forgotten cannot be enforced beyond the EU is an appropriate step to curb European overreach that jeopardized the future of the global internet. Statement from @castrotech: https://itif.org/... https://twitter.com/...
This is an extremely important ruling, because if Europe could dictate that Google (or any other company) had to take down content globally, then it would open up for countries like China to do the same. Imagine if people in Europe couldn't see something because China said so. ht…
Right, so eventually brutal dictators could probably just order tech companies not to have links to details about them...if actually convicted criminals can have any mention quietly removed in search; #EndoftheInternet https://www.bbc.com/... https://twitter.com/...
“Google wins”? No, the winners here are every Web user outside the EU who didn't care to see search results censored worldwide to honor EU “right to be forgotten” decisions. https://www.bbc.com/...
Years ago the TWiET crew described the EU “Right to be forgotten” as a well-intentioned law that was going to be abused and misused. All these years later we find that the “Right to be forgotten” has been... ... abused and misused. Go figure. https://www.bbc.com/...
Argued along the same line when I was a member of Google advisory board. The RTBF is still Westphalian, with law bounded by geography, it is the GDPR that is (rightly) post-Westphalian : “Google wins landmark right to be forgotten case” https://www.bbc.co.uk/...