Google doesn’t have to remove illegal search results worldwide

The ECJ has ruled that Google is not obliged to make a delisting in all versions of its search engine, but is obliged to carry out such a statement in all versions of the Member States and to take measures to prevent internet users from doing so. to access the relevant links in non-EU versions of the search engine from a Member State.

The Conseil d’Etat in France referred a number of questions for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice seeking to ascertain whether the provisions of EU law on the protection of personal data must be interpreted as meaning that the operator of a search engine, if he is a the list application is made in all versions of its search engine, only in all versions of the Member State or only in the version for the Member State in which the delisting application was made.

Therefore, the Court pointed out that it had already ruled that a search engine operator is obliged to remove from the list of results displayed following a search carried out on the basis of a person’s name, links
to websites published by third parties containing information relating to that person, even if the name or information on those websites is not deleted beforehand or at the same time and, where applicable, even if their publication on the websites is lawful as such.

The ECJ then found that Google’s establishment in France carries out activities, in particular commercial and advertising activities which are inextricably linked to the processing of personal data relating to the operation of the search engine concerned, and that: Google carries out uniform processing of personal data, in particular taking into account the links between its various national versions.

Such a situation therefore falls within the scope of EU rules on the protection of personal data. In a globalized world, access by internet users, in particular those located outside the Union, to the listing of a link leading to information about a person whose centre of interest is in the Union could also have a direct and
significant impact on that person within the Union, so that a worldwide delisting could fully achieve the protection objective of Union law.

However, many third countries would not know of any right of delisting or take a different approach to that right. Furthermore, the right to the protection of personal data is not an unrestricted right, but must be seen in the light of its social function and must be balanced against other fundamental rights while respecting the principle of proportionality.

Author: Marian Härtel

Marian Härtel ist Rechtsanwalt und Fachanwalt für IT-Recht mit einer über 25-jährigen Erfahrung als Unternehmer und Berater in den Bereichen Games, E-Sport, Blockchain, SaaS und Künstliche Intelligenz. Seine Beratungsschwerpunkte umfassen neben dem IT-Recht insbesondere das Urheberrecht, Medienrecht sowie Wettbewerbsrecht. Er betreut schwerpunktmäßig Start-ups, Agenturen und Influencer, die er in strategischen Fragen, komplexen Vertragsangelegenheiten sowie bei Investitionsprojekten begleitet. Dabei zeichnet sich seine Beratung durch einen interdisziplinären Ansatz aus, der juristische Expertise und langjährige unternehmerische Erfahrung miteinander verbindet. Ziel seiner Tätigkeit ist stets, Mandanten praxisorientierte Lösungen anzubieten und rechtlich fundierte Unterstützung bei der Umsetzung innovativer Geschäftsmodelle zu gewährleisten.