-
The regulations afford for a right to erasure [Art. 17]. This provision expands what had become known as the “right to be forgotten” that the EU Court of Justice had in 2014 in a case adjacent Google Spain. Under the GDPR, individuals can ask companies to erase personal goods in specific circumstances: for example, if the goods is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was collected; if the individual withdraws consent or objects and there is no overriding justification for keeping it; or if the goods was otherwise unlawfully processed in breach of the GDPR. This right also applies if the personal goods has been made public, raising considerable implementation difficulties given the comfort with which online information can be copied and shared athwart multiple websites in various jurisdictions.
-
The rules provide exceptions, including if the goods processing is decisive for the exercise of freedom of expression and information or for archival or research purposes. However, these are not well defined in the GDPR, and are left for national charter to elaborate. Because private platforms risk penalty for non-compliance, the provision may tend to encourage unnecessary or excessive take-downs of content, infringing freedom of expression. In addition, leaving determinations about when deal with is necessary for freedom of expression (and other public interest grounds) to the discretion of companies, rather than impartial tribunals, means there is little procedural recourse for those who wish to continue to have entry to information that is removed.
-
The “right to be forgotten” developed in EU Court of Justice commanding has been for permissive people to suppress truthful, non-defamatory clue that simply may be unflattering. For example, people in positions of public trust (such as elected officials, priests, and financial professionals) have to use the right to be forgotten to remove news articles discussing their previous criminal faith from Google search results.