Defamation and social media expert lawyers. Best defamation solicitor

Internet Law Specialist Lawyers FREE CALL 0800 612 7211

Recently removed from the internet
What our clients say...
"They immediately referred us to Cohen Davis in the UK who successfully removed the review"
“ We have had highly defamatory comments posted against our company and me, the CEO on... 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 outside the UK.

 

 

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

 

TheInternet LawCentre

How to deal with online articles misrepresenting you

How to deal with online articles misrepresenting you

What to do to remove misleading information about you online

Imagine waking up one day to find that when people search your name online, they see misleading or completely false information about you. Maybe an old news article twists the truth, or a search result unfairly links you to something you never did. It could be a misreported crime, a mistaken identity, or just outdated stories that no longer reflect who you are.

Misleading search result on snippets

Removing snippets from Google searches

Lawyers thoughts on the case

Contact us

Misleading search result on snippets

In 2011, Mr. Anderson (not his real name) faced serious legal challenges, convicted of selling a class B drug and conspiring to pervert the course of justice. His six-year prison sentence was followed by a period of profound personal transformation. While incarcerated, he dedicated himself to teaching fellow inmates to read and write and gained a deep understanding of legal matters, eventually securing a role at a respected law firm.

However, his past convictions continue to haunt him, especially due to the online footprint left by media coverage of his case. When people search his name, misleading snippets on Google search results often connect him to an unrelated crime—murder—a false accusation that he was never charged with or convicted of. This issue stems from how search engines, particularly Google, may mix and match names and events in snippets when displaying news stories. A snippet is a brief summary of the content found on a webpage, but in this case, it creates a distorted representation of Mr. Anderson's past.

Removing snippets from Google searches

Recognising the critical impact of these misrepresentations, our firm took swift action to address the inaccuracies. We began by documenting the offending URLs and preserving evidence of how Google’s search results portrayed Mr. Anderson. Subsequent efforts involved drafting and submitting several Right to Be Forgotten requests under the relevant articles of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), advocating for the protection of Mr. Anderson’s privacy rights and the removal of the misleading URLs.

When our initial requests were denied, we escalated the matter by serving a comprehensive GDPR notice on Google, aiming to correct the false online narrative. Despite our detailed submissions and legal advocacy, the removal efforts faced significant obstacles, primarily because Mr. Anderson’s conviction was not legally considered 'spent,' and thus still held relevance under current legal standards. Unfortunately, our endeavours to clear Mr. Anderson’s name online were unsuccessful. The challenge was compounded by a lack of ongoing communication from Mr. Anderson, who ceased responding to our follow-ups, limiting our ability to further advocate on his behalf.

Lawyers thoughts on the case

This case underscores the complexities of managing ones online reputation in an era where legal outcomes are permanently accessible. It brings to light the limitations of the Right to Be Forgotten in cases where convictions are unspent, as seen in similar legal precedents such as the NT2 V Google case. While we were disheartened by the outcome, this case has reinforced our resolve to advocate for legal reforms that consider the rehabilitative contributions of individuals like Mr. Anderson, who despite their past, have made significant efforts to contribute positively to society.

Reflecting on this experience, our firm remains committed to the rigorous application of GDPR tools to defend our clients’ rights. We believe that there should be a greater emphasis on the societal contributions of individuals post-conviction, which should weigh more significantly in decisions about digital information removal. This case has not only highlighted the challenges faced today but also the urgent need for legal systems to adapt to the realities of rehabilitation and redemption.

Contact us

Are you keen to remove content from the internet? Call our super friendly team now for support and advice on +44 207 183 4123 or send a request and we will call you back.

 

a flat out uncond

Signature cases

Our work featured on

Latest Articles

Explore this topic!