Right to Be Forgotten and Google Content Removal

It cannot be considered in the public interest to consult an article accessible through a search engine and dating back six years, where political opinions that cannot be verified are reported. This is what the Milan Court decided by accepting the appeal of a university professor who challenged the Privacy Authority's decision and sued Google for refusing to delist URLs and digital traces of the search for her name, which displayed results related to her alleged recommendation in obtaining administrative positions.

Right to Be Forgotten and Public Figures: The University Professor’s Roles and Controversies

A university professor, holder of the Chair of Political Economy at the University of Roma Tre, also holds various positions within economic market authorities of the energy sector.
She is a member of the Electricity and Gas Authority, vice president of MEDREG (Mediterranean Energy Regulators), and member of CEER (Council of European Energy Regulators).

Political Opinions and Online Reputation Rights

It is no secret that she is married to a former deputy and it is therefore plausible that she also has political sympathies and, above all, enjoys the esteem of a prominent political party member, who is also party secretary and has held ministerial office.
A print journalist, representing a political position opposed to the party her husband belonged to, decided to investigate her candidacy for the Energy Authority board.

Online Defamation: The Contested Journalistic Article

After a short investigation, he published an article titled “Democrats in Disarray – Energy? A Family Affair. B’s Recommended Candidate Wins” with the subtitle “The secretary appoints the wife of a former Ds deputy to the Authority. Party clash. Experts embarrassed: unexplained appointment.”
He questioned the professor’s candidacy as a member of the Energy Authority and suggested that she did not need her academic curriculum but relied on connections at the top of politics.

Experts’ Opinions and Alleged Favoritism

He attacked the professor because, according to two economists interviewed by the journalist, she was not considered a true expert in the field. These economists expressed doubts about her winning the Political Economy Chair, judging her less capable and qualified than other candidates.
The journalist emphasized the doubt that the professor had the professional requirements for the independent authority position, inferring that if her academic credentials were not deemed sufficient, the appointment was likely due to political recommendation.

Request for Article Removal and Right to Be Forgotten

Upon learning about the article, the professor, outraged, immediately requested its removal from the newspaper’s online archive.
However, the journalist persisted to portray her as another politically recommended individual.

Right to Delete Content: Article Republished Online

A few months later, the journalist republished the article on his blog, focusing on environmental issues, and on another website. The professor noticed that despite many search results reflecting her academic and institutional career, the sixth Google result for her name pointed to this allegedly defamatory article.

Legal Action to Protect the Right to Be Forgotten

The case was filed under Art. 152 of Legislative Decree no. 196/2003 to annul the Privacy Authority’s decision. After the defendants were constituted and the evidentiary phase concluded, the case was discussed and decided under Art. 281 sexies c.p.c.

Arguments on Public Interest and Privacy

The plaintiff contested the existence of public interest in knowing the news containing her personal data, accessible through Google search, due to the time elapsed since its publication and the defamatory content.

Defense by the Privacy Authority and the Search Engine

The Privacy Authority claimed public interest in quickly accessing the information due to the individual’s public role and the search engine’s inability to assess the accuracy of the information published on the original site, requesting dismissal.
Google Italy S.r.l. and Google Inc. raised preliminary objections regarding passive legitimacy and argued that the webmaster of the source site should be addressed, as well as the prevalence of public interest in the information.

Milan Court: Google Italy Responsible for Privacy Cases

The Milan Court accepted the appeal regarding the articles accessible via the search term “name and surname.”
The objection of lack of passive legitimacy by Google Italy S.r.l. was rejected, as it was appointed by Google Inc. as its national representative under Art. 5 of the Code. The Court then examined the merits of the arguments.

Balancing the Right to Information and the Right to Be Forgotten

To balance conflicting rights, the Court cited the CJEU ruling Google v. Costeja Gonzalez and the Guidelines under Art. 29 of Directive 95/46/EC, considering the time factor and the public role of the individual, as well as the invasiveness of search engine information, the economic freedom of search engine operators, freedom of information, and freedom of expression.

The Right to Disassociate One’s Name from Search Results

The Court distinguished personal identity rights from the right to be forgotten, defining it as the right to disassociate one’s name from a specific search result, different from the right to be forgotten. Relevant references include Art. 2 of the Constitution, Arts. 3 and 8 of the European Charter of Human Rights, Art. 1 of Directive 95/46/EC, and Art. 2 of Legislative Decree 196/2003, all aimed at protecting inviolable personal rights.

Deletion of Outdated or Non-Public Interest Data

The Court held that the personal data, even if processed for journalistic purposes and still seemingly relevant due to the public role, “are not updated or pertinent and do not have public interest,” as the opinions were unconfirmed and the publisher had already removed the article from the online archive.

A New Category of Rights for Online Personal Identity

This ruling clarified key concepts in personal data protection on the web.
It recognized Google Italy S.r.l. as the Italian representative of Google Inc. under Art. 5 of Legislative Decree 196/2003 and established the autonomous right to disassociate one’s name from specific search results as part of personal identity rights, distinct from the right to be forgotten.

High-Level Recommendations in Italian Politics: Other Similar Cases

Investigations into political recommendations often make headlines, but assumptions are not always backed by evidence. Examples include former ministers Bray and Alfano, where online speculation linked appointments to political favoritism rather than merit.

Legal Assistance for Right to Be Forgotten and Online Defamation Cases

This case shows how the right to be forgotten is a delicate matter, balancing public interest and reputation protection.

In similar cases, it is essential to consult a lawyer specialized in the right to be forgotten and digital reputation protection, capable of assisting anyone harmed by outdated or defamatory online content.