Defamation and social media expert lawyers. Best defamation solicitor

DEFAMATION LEGAL ADVICE FREE CALL 0800 612 7211

Recently removed from the internet

Right to be forotten solicitors

Law Society Awards winners. Cohen Davis

What our clients say...
"grateful that I stumbled across the Firm"
“Many thanks for your ongoing communication. Having met Mr Cohen I can only say how... Read More...
Contact our super friendly Social Media lawyers today!

Click HERE to Call Free for immediate help! 0800 612 7211

 

Every situation is different so by far the best way to find out how to respond to a social media legal issue is to speak to those who are most likely to have dealt with a situation similar to yours.
To find out how you can improve your reputation on the internet simply select one of the easy methods of contacting us.


Please use the form below to contact us.
We will respond as soon as possible.

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Or you can call us on our free hotline.

FREEPHONE  0800 612 7211

(+) 44 207 183 4 123 from outsite the UK.

Or if you prefer you can email us to helpline (at) CohenDavis.co.uk.

TheInternet LawCentre

How to make a successful right to be forgotten application

right to be forgotten legal advice solicitors

On 12 October 2014, Google reported to have rejected more than two thirds of all the ‘right to be forgotten’ applications they received from UK applicants.

Google’s decision to comply with any such applications is of course at their discretion (albeit in accordance with the landmark court ruling made in Google Spain SL & Google Inc v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) & Costeja González (“Google Spain”) in May 2014) and there are currently no hard and fast rules which might serve to predict an applicant’s chances of success. Indeed, when comparing some successful applications against those which Google rejected, it becomes quite apparent that (at least on the face of it) even Google does not appear to maintain a consistent approach in how it deals with each right to be forgotten request.

A Google Search result to an article about a previous criminal conviction might just as readily be removed based on one person’s application as it might be rejected based on someone else’s application.

One possible explanation for this inconsistency may be attributed to Google’s online ‘search removal request’ form that applicants are required to submit. The form, which is available here comes with no guidance on how it should be completed and neither does it specify what grounds Google considers to be acceptable to justify the successful removal of search results to unwanted web pages.

It does appear however that Google will refuse to remove search results where a completed application form fails to fulfil the basic criteria set out in the Google Spain case mentioned above.

So what are the most common errors made by applicants invoking their right to be forgotten?

Google first made its right to be forgotten form available to UK users on 29 May, 2014. By October 14, it received 63,616 removal applications but agreed only to remove 18,460. Our own data indicates that many of the rejected applications were submitted by users who did not first obtain legal advice. Upon close examination of a score of rejected right to be forgotten applications we have identified 3 common errors that are likely to contribute to a failed application. These are as follows:

1. Citing ‘defamation’ as a sole reason for removal: most rejected applicants cited defamation as the main or sole reason why their right to be forgotten application should be successful. The truth is that to a large extent defamation has nothing to do with the right to be forgotten under European law and so Google is not obliged to remove unwanted search results even if they might well contain defamatory material.

2. Citing ‘historical information’ as a reason for removal: many rejected applicants cited lapse in time as the reason why their right to be forgotten application should be successful. The truth is that a right to be forgotten does not impose on Google a duty to remove links to old information.

3. Citing ‘unlawful use of images’ as a reason for removal: some rejected applicants cited various copyright, trademark and other intellectual property breaches as the reason why their right to be forgotten application should be successful. The truth is that Google is not obliged under a right to be forgotten to remove images which might be protected by intellectual property rights.

How do I make a successful right to be forgotten application?

Most importantly you need to cite Data Protection laws rather than defamation, intellectual property, or other laws.

The most important law to mention in the application is the UK Data Protection Act 1998, which is derived from European law. Under section 1 the processing of the data must be “necessary”, it must be “relevant” and “proportionate” and it must “not be excessive”. If the webpage about you contains information which is untrue or defamatory, then you may state in your application that the data is “irrelevant” to you under the Data Protection Act because it is false and therefore is wrongly attributed to you.

Similarly, if the offending web page contains old but still accurate information, you may state that the information is “irrelevant” or “excessive”, particularly if it is in relation to a minor criminal conviction. Defamatory or old information might also be considered “disproportionate” if the information is given too much prominence on search results or if it causes you disproportionate hardship.

If the webpage includes an image of yours, which you object to being reproduced, you may cite infringements of your right to private life. Likewise, if someone takes an image of you without your permission and uploads it to the internet, it may be removed under a right to be forgotten.

What if my application under a right to be forgotten is refused?

If Google rejects your application, your next step should be to ask the Information Commission to look into the matter or issue Google with a formal letter under section 10(3) of the Data Protection Act 1998 so that Google ceases the processing of your data. If Google still does not respond to this, the letter may be followed by legal action. The first few cases are currently going through the courts.

How can Cohen Davis help?

As specialists in internet law, we have dealt with many right to be forgotten cases for our clients and we have been successful in removing unwanted information from the internet for many. Based on our broad experience in these matters we will be able to assist you in all aspects of your right to forgotten matter, from completing Google’s initial application form, to serving appropriate notices and if needed representing you at court.

 

 

Pin It
Our work featured on

    Internet defamation lawguardian remove images from the internet Amazon specialist lawyer

online defamation legal advice

Cease and Desist letter
Internet Law Blog
Injunction online harassment. The case of DDF
When harassment occurs on social media we will obtain an injunction, anonymise our client and allow her to continue with... Read More...
Internet defamation terminology Adwords Advertising
Internet Defamation Dictionary Definition Of Adwords Advertising Adwords is the name of a Google advertising programme where... Read More...
How to Remove False and Defamatory Reviews
Questions about defamatory online reviews Many people genuinely believe and even insist that review websites are there to... Read More...
UK Privacy lawyers