How to exercise the right to be forgotten on Google | Guide

Appearing in Google search results with negative, outdated, or irrelevant information can have a significant impact on your personal and professional life. In fact, a single negative search can affect your reputation, job opportunities, or even your business relationships. For this reason, the right to be forgotten on Google allows personal data on the Internet to be protected. Google analyzes each case individually and may accept, reject, or partially uphold a request for content removal. Understanding the procedure for exercising this right, the criteria set by Google, and the legislation and case law that develop it is essential to ensure success.

In this guide, we explain step by step what the right to be forgotten or right of erasure is, when it can be exercised, how to submit the request, practical advice, and what legal remedies are available if the response is negative.

What is the right to be forgotten and what it allows you to remove

The right to be forgotten is the right of a person to request that certain search results containing personal data no longer appear when their name is searched on Google or other search engines. In other words, it allows the removal of personal information that is false, outdated, irrelevant, or disproportionate in relation to the person’s current situation.

It is important to note that the right to be forgotten does not mean deleting the original content from the Internet. This means that the news item, image, article, or post may still exist on the website that published it, but Google will no longer show that link in its search results when someone searches for your name. Therefore, the content does not disappear from the original website, but it is no longer accessible through the search engine, and Google “de-indexes” it from its results. Among others, this right to be forgotten is interesting for influencers and content creators.

Right to be forgotten and legal framework

The right to be forgotten has been developed progressively through European regulations, the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and its implementation in the national laws of the Member States. Below, we explain the legal framework that covers the right to be forgotten.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as the basis of the right to be forgotten

The General Data Protection Regulation recognizes the right to be forgotten in Article 17, under the name “right to erasure.” This provision establishes that a person may request the deletion of their personal data when, among other cases:

• a) The data are no longer necessary for the purpose for which they were collected;
• b) Consent has been withdrawn;
• c) The data subject objects to the processing and there are no overriding legitimate grounds for the processing (Article 21);
• d) The personal data have been processed unlawfully;
• e) The personal data must be erased to comply with a legal obligation under European Union law or the law of the Member States applicable to the controller;
• f) The personal data were obtained in relation to the offer of information society services.

However, this “right to erasure” must be balanced against other rights, especially freedom of expression and the right to information. This balancing exercise has been defined over time through European case law.

European case law on the right to be forgotten

Google Spain vs. Costeja González (2014)

The origin of the right to be forgotten in digital search engines lies in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-131/12, Mario Costeja – Google Spain. This ruling established that search engines are responsible for the processing of personal data that they index and display when a name is searched. Following this judgment, the GDPR expressly included the right to erasure of data in Article 17, which also applies to search engines, and it has since been developed through guidelines issued by data protection authorities and decisions that clarify when the protection of a person’s private life should prevail.

In the Mario Costeja vs. Google Spain case, the CJEU ruled that the data subject’s right not to have their personal information made available to the public prevails over the economic interest of the search engine and the public’s interest in accessing the information. However, when balancing the conflicting rights, a “fair balance” must be sought, and this must be properly justified. As a result, the CJEU entrusted Google — which has clear economic interests — with the task of balancing the rights in conflict in order to determine the balance between the user’s right to personal privacy and the right to freedom of information of internet users. This balancing function is more appropriately carried out by the courts or, where applicable, by the data protection authority of each Member State, acting as an independent supervisory authority.

Google vs. CNIL (2019)

In case C-507/17 (Google LLC vs. CNIL), the CJEU clarified the territorial scope of the right to be forgotten as applied to search engines. The Court ruled that, in principle, Google is not required to apply de-indexing on all domains worldwide (.com, etc.), but at least on all versions of the search engine corresponding to EU Member States, together with measures to prevent access from within the EU through other domains.

This judgment balanced data protection with the global nature of the internet, avoiding the automatic imposition of worldwide censorship, while requiring that the right to be forgotten be effective within the EU. In this way, it confirmed a “regional” model of the right to be forgotten, strong within the European area but not necessarily extended to third countries.

GC and Others vs. CNIL (2019)

In the joined cases C-136/17 (GC and Others vs. CNIL), the CJEU ruled on the processing of special categories of data (such as health, ideology, religion, or sexual life) by search engines. The Court stated that, for this particularly sensitive information, search engines must apply stricter scrutiny and, in many cases, agree to de-indexing unless there is a particularly strong public interest.

The judgment also clarified that even in relation to sensitive data there may be situations where the public interest in information prevails, for example in relation to public figures or matters of significant social relevance. In this way, GC and Others vs. CNIL refined the balancing test introduced in Costeja, defining how Google should handle the most sensitive information about individuals.

Development of the right to be forgotten in European national laws

In the European Union, the right to be forgotten is complemented by the national data protection laws of each Member State. These laws adapt the GDPR and explain how citizens can contact both search engines and the supervisory authority when they believe their data are still appearing without justification. Below, we analyze the national laws of some Member States that have complemented or adapted to the GDPR and their main features.

Country	Main data protection law	How it regulates the right to be forgotten / key points
Spain	Organic Law 3/2018 on the Protection of Personal Data and the Guarantee of Digital Rights (LOPDGDD)	It develops the GDPR and expressly includes the right to be forgotten in internet searches and on social networks and equivalent services in Articles 93 and 94. It recognizes the possibility of requesting the de-indexing of results linked to a person’s name when the information is inadequate, inaccurate, irrelevant, outdated, or excessive, making Spain one of the legal systems where this right is most clearly regulated at national level.
France	Loi Informatique et Libertés (amended to adapt to the GDPR)	It incorporates the right to erasure and the right to be forgotten in line with the GDPR and is applied under the supervision of the CNIL. The French authority has played a leading role in discussing the territorial scope of the right to be forgotten in relation to Google, defending in several proceedings a broad interpretation to prevent disproportionate data from remaining accessible from France.
Germany	Bundesdatenschutzgesetz (BDSG)	The BDSG complements the GDPR and regulates the right to erasure. German practice places strong emphasis on balancing data protection with freedom of expression and freedom of the press, so authorities and courts carry out particularly detailed analyses when there may be a public interest in the information requested to be de-indexed.
Belgium	Law on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data (30 July 2018)	The Belgian data protection authority and judicial practice follow the case law of the CJEU, paying special attention to the professional and reputational effects of the information and to whether it is proportionate for it to remain accessible through search engines. Get more information about the right to be forgotten in Belgium.

The EDPB (European Data Protection Board) is an independent EU body that ensures the application of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in all Member States, promotes cooperation between national data protection authorities, and advises EU institutions on data protection legislation. The right to be forgotten is also related to the Schengen Information System and the deletion of personal data.

When the right to be forgotten can be exercised on Google?

Below, we explain the reasons why the right to be forgotten can be requested on Google, with practical examples, in order to protect personal data in the digital environment and request the unlinking of certain information.

Outdated or obsolete information

First, the right to be forgotten can be exercised when search results show old information that no longer reflects the current situation of the affected person. For example, events that happened many years ago and have lost public relevance but still appear among the top results when searching for a name on Google. Over time, public interest may disappear, while reputational harm remains. In these cases, the removal of such links can be requested.

💡 Practical example: A professional in the commercial sector appeared on Google linked to a news article from more than ten years ago about a labor dispute. The matter was quickly resolved at the time through an out-of-court settlement with the company, but the article continued to appear in Google’s indexed results. Given the time that had passed and the lack of current public interest, the removal of the link was requested and accepted.

Personal data that are no longer relevant

The right to be forgotten can also be exercised when personal data are no longer relevant to the purpose for which they were originally published. This happens, for example, when information was relevant at a specific moment but no longer has public interest today. As a result, keeping it indexed on Google may be disproportionate in relation to its impact on the affected person, especially if the impact is negative today.

💡 Practical example: A person who had held a position in a company appeared in search results related to an internal restructuring that took place years earlier. Although the information was true, it was no longer relevant and negatively affected their professional career. In this context, its continued presence in search results was considered disproportionate, and de-indexing was achieved.

News about court proceedings that have already been resolved

Another common situation involves news related to court proceedings that have already ended, such as dismissals, acquittals, or the cancellation of criminal records, and that were resolved in favor of the requesting person. Although the news was accurate and relevant at the time, its continued appearance in search results does not reflect the current reality. Therefore, when the judicial process has been concluded and there is no public interest, the right to be forgotten applies.

💡 Practical example: An individual appeared linked to a criminal investigation that was closed without going to trial. Despite this, several news articles about the investigation continued to appear on Google years later. Once the definitive closure of the case and the lack of public interest were proven, the links associated with the person’s name were removed.

Inaccurate, incomplete, or out-of-context information

The right to be forgotten can also be exercised when Google search results contain incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information. In these cases, the issue is not only the passage of time, but also the lack of accuracy or the misleading context in which the information appears. Keeping this type of result may infringe the right to privacy, honor, and personal data protection.

💡 Practical example: A news article reported an administrative sanction but did not mention that the sanction was later overturned. The lack of complete information created a misleading perception of the affected person and harmed their reputation. In this case, de-indexing was accepted after it was shown that the information displayed was incomplete and partially misleading.

Data that cause disproportionate harm

Finally, the right to be forgotten can be exercised when the publication of certain personal data causes excessive harm compared to its informational value. This is especially relevant when search results affect a person’s reputation, professional life, or job opportunities without a clear public interest that justifies their continued presence. In such cases, European courts have recognized that the right to data protection may prevail over the right to information.

💡 Practical example: A self-employed professional saw their business activity affected because their name appeared linked to a financial issue with the tax authorities that occurred many years earlier. Although the event was real, its current impact was clearly disproportionate compared to the limited public interest. After reviewing the case, the search engine considered the removal of the results appropriate.

Sensitive personal data and information

The right to be forgotten is particularly strong when the information to be de-indexed involves sensitive personal data, such as data related to racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, as well as data concerning health, sexual life, or sexual orientation. Due to the special protection granted to this data under data protection laws, its processing and dissemination through search engines require stronger justification. As a general rule, the balance favors the protection of the affected person’s fundamental rights, unless there is a strong overriding public interest.

💡 Practical example: A person’s name appeared in Google search results linked to an old article that revealed information about a serious illness they had suffered in the past. Although the information was true, the link was disproportionate and harmful to the person’s privacy. In this case, since it involved health data, which are specially protected, the link was de-indexed.

Individual case-by-case assessment

In conclusion, although these are the most common situations, there is no closed list of cases in which the right to be forgotten applies. Google reviews each request individually, considering factors such as the source of the information, how old the content is, its impact on Google users, the role the person plays in public life, the general interest of the information, its accuracy, and whether it involves sensitive data. For this reason, before submitting a request, our lawyers assess the viability of the case in order to properly prepare the request.

💡 Added value: In general, the more time has passed, the more the situation has changed, and the less public interest exists, the greater the chances that Google will de-index those links.

Is Google required to review a content removal request?

Google is legally required to review requests for the removal of content submitted under the right to be forgotten, provided that they are properly justified. This obligation arises from European data protection law—particularly the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—and from established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

Under this legal framework, Google acts as a data controller for the personal data it indexes and displays through its search engine. As a result, it must review each request submitted. In practice, when a right to be forgotten request is filed, Google is required to:

• Review the case on an individual basis, taking into account the specific circumstances of the person concerned and the information involved.
• Balance the fundamental right to data protection and private life against the right to freedom of information and the public interest in accessing that information.
• Provide the applicant with an explicit and reasoned decision, explaining why the removal of the link from search results is accepted or rejected.

However, the existence of this obligation does not mean that all requests must be granted. The success of the process depends on proper legal reasoning, the correct identification of the applicable criteria (such as public relevance, how current the information is, the status of the person concerned, and the nature of the data), and sufficient evidence of the harm caused. For this reason, having specialized legal advice is key to increasing the chances of success.

When Google may reject a right to be forgotten request?

Google may legitimately reject a request when it considers that removing the results would affect the right to information or the public interest. For this reason, it is important to understand the limits of the right to erasure and to approach each case correctly from the outset. The main situations are explained below.

Public interest and informational relevance

First, Google may reject a request when the information has a clear and current public interest. This happens when search results refer to facts that remain relevant to society, whether due to their social, economic, or institutional impact. In such cases, the right to information may prevail over the right to the protection of personal data.

Information may be considered to be in the public interest for different reasons. In this decision-making process, Google relies on various legal and guidance sources. These include guidelines issued by European data protection authorities, such as those of the former Article 29 Working Party on the application of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s ruling on the right to be forgotten, as well as the guidelines of the European Data Protection Board.

People with a public profile

Google applies stricter criteria when the request comes from people with a public profile. This category includes, among others, individuals who hold or have held political office, relevant institutional roles, or activities with social or economic influence. In these cases, society has a greater interest in accessing certain information, which limits the scope of the right to be forgotten.

💡 Example: A senior executive of a company with media presence requested the removal of results related to their professional management. Given their public role and the relevance of the information to third parties, Google considered the continued presence of the links justified.

💡 Example: A person involved in a case of recent social relevance requested the removal of several news articles from Google. However, since the facts were current and had public impact, the request was rejected due to the existence of a legitimate public interest.

Current or recent information

Google also tends to reject requests when the information is recent or related to current events. The right to be forgotten is intended for information that has lost relevance over time. Therefore, when the events are recent, the public interest usually prevails, at least temporarily.

💡Example: A person requested the removal of news articles published only a few months earlier about ongoing legal proceedings. In this case, the request was rejected because the information was still considered current.

Relevant professional activities

Finally, Google may deny a request when the information is directly related to professional activities that affect third parties. This includes, for example, information relevant to clients, consumers, investors, or users of a service. In such cases, maintaining access to the information may be considered necessary to protect the legitimate interests of others, such as reviews on Google My Business, Google Maps, or local businesses.

💡Example: A professional in the financial sector requested the removal of results linked to administrative sanctions related to their activity. Since the information could be relevant to potential clients, Google considered that there was a legitimate interest in keeping it available.

Official gazettes and digital archives

Right to be forgotten requests affecting official gazettes (such as the BOE or regional and provincial official journals) and digital newspaper archives are difficult to have de-indexed. These sources have a high informational value and public interest, which tends to favor the right to information.

In the case of official gazettes, the published information is official in nature and aims to ensure public access to administrative and judicial acts. Search engines and data protection authorities usually consider that there is a strong public interest in keeping this information accessible. For this reason, de-indexing links to official gazettes requires specific experience and expertise. A similar situation applies to digital newspaper archives, which serve an archival function and preserve the public record. Google and the authorities generally consider that maintaining access responds to a legitimate interest of society.

How to exercise the right to be forgotten on Google step by step

Below is the step-by-step process, as it is applied in practice and in line with the criteria used by Google.

1. Identify the exact results you want to remove

Before submitting any request, it is essential to define exactly which results you want to remove. Google does not review general requests, but specific links tied to specific searches.

Identify the exact URLs

First, you must locate the specific URLs that appear in the search results and contain your personal data. It is not enough to mention the name of the media outlet or the website; you must copy the exact address of each result. The more precise this identification is, the stronger the request will be.

Check name-based searches

The right to be forgotten mainly applies when the information appears when searching for your first and last name (or a clear variation). For this reason, it is important to check which results appear when searching your full name, which variations also generate results (second surname, initials, etc.), and the position of each link (to assess the impact on the affected person and to avoid leaving any link out).

Collect screenshots and evidence

It is also advisable to save screenshots of the search results when preparing the request. This evidence helps prove that the link appears associated with your name, shows how visible the result is, and supports the request if you submit it to Google or need to appeal later.

2. Assess the viability of the case individually

Once the results have been identified, the next step is to assess whether the case is viable. This analysis often makes the difference between a request and the final outcome.

Public interest in the information

First, you must assess whether the information still has current public interest. If the facts are still relevant to society, Google may reject the request. On the other hand, if the public interest has disappeared over time, the right to be forgotten carries more weight.

How old the events are

The time that has passed is one of the most important factors. The older the events and the lower their current relevance, the higher the chances of success.

Role of the person concerned

It is also essential to consider the person’s role. A private individual with no public profile is not assessed in the same way as someone with a relevant public role or media exposure.

3. Prepare the request from a legal perspective

Once viability has been assessed, the removal and de-indexing request must be prepared with maximum rigor, as if it were a court claim. Approaching this step superficially, or without the necessary legal knowledge, is a common reason for rejection.

Legal reasoning

The request must clearly explain why the information is outdated, irrelevant, or disproportionate, and what harm its continued presence in search results causes. It must also explain why the right to data protection should prevail and provide the legal basis for the request.

Supporting documentation

It is important to attach documents that support what is being claimed. Evidence may include notarized powers of attorney, court decisions or judgments, certificates confirming the cancellation of criminal records, or documents proving relevant changes. The better documented the request is, the stronger it will be.

Common mistakes to avoid

Common mistakes include generic requests, lack of evidence, contradictory arguments, and including too many irrelevant links, among others.

4. Submit the request to Google

Once the request is prepared, it must be submitted through Google’s specific form for the right to be forgotten.

Which form to use

Google provides a form to request the removal of results for data protection reasons. It is important to always use this official channel and to complete all fields accurately.

What not to do when submitting the request

Avoid submitting multiple identical requests, changing arguments without coherence or justification, and providing unnecessary or confusing information (chronology of facts, legal reasoning, evidence, etc.).

Typical response time

In general, Google responds within a timeframe that can range from several days to a few weeks. This depends on the content to be removed, the number of links to be de-indexed, the amount of supporting evidence, and the complexity, among other factors. The response can be positive, negative, or partial.

5. Google’s response and next steps

Once you receive a response, you must review it carefully, since not all decisions have the same scope.

Acceptance of the request

If Google accepts the request, the links will no longer appear in the results associated with the name provided. In that case, it is advisable to check in the days after acceptance that the de-indexing has been applied correctly. If it has not, it is advisable to contact Google again.

💡 To verify that a result has been correctly de-indexed, it is recommended to check from an incognito window or while logged out of Google, so that results are not influenced by search history or the user’s account.

After that, it is advisable to repeat the search using different variations of the name—full name and surnames, only one surname, reversed order, professional name, or an alias if it is publicly used—because removal is usually applied to specific queries, not in a general way. Finally, it is important to check the visibility of the result both on European Google domains (such as google.es, google.fr, or google.de) and on google.com from a location within the European Union, bearing in mind that de-indexing is applied on EU domains and through geoblocking for European users.

Rejection of the request

If the request is rejected, Google will indicate the reasons for the rejection. In this scenario, it is possible to revise and correct the request by adding missing elements or improving the arguments, or to consider filing a complaint with the competent data protection authority, or pursuing court action.

Partial acceptance

In some cases, Google removes only part of the requested links (it partially accepts the request). This situation requires a specific analysis to decide whether to appeal and how to proceed. If a result reappears after it has been removed, the first step is to identify whether it is the same URL or a new one (for example, a repost, a domain change, or a copy of the content), document its reappearance with dated screenshots and the exact search query, and submit a new de-indexing request stating that a previous removal was granted and that the content is identical.

What to do if Google rejects your right to be forgotten request

Receiving a negative response from Google to a right to be forgotten request does not mean the process is over. A significant number of requests that are rejected at first end up succeeding after a legal reassessment or through the appropriate legal channels. In practice, Google often rejects requests due to weak legal arguments, lack of sufficient evidence, or a questionable balancing of the right to personal data protection against the right to information.

When it makes sense to challenge a negative decision from Google

Factors to consider include the legal reasons given by Google under the GDPR and European case law, how old the events are and their current relevance, the impact on the person’s personal, professional, or reputational life, and whether new evidence or additional documents can be provided. When a challenge is well prepared, it can be an effective way to achieve de-indexing.

💡 Based on our experience: In many cases, the issue is not that the right to be forgotten does not apply, but that the request is poorly prepared from a legal perspective, without a proper balancing of fundamental rights or enough supporting evidence.

Complaint to the data protection authority

After a rejection by Google, the next step is to go to the competent data protection authority, depending on the applicant’s country. This process allows an independent administrative authority to review Google’s decision, assess the balancing of fundamental rights, and issue a binding decision for the search engine. For this reason, it is strongly recommended to have legal advice in data protection, digital law, and online reputation.

Last option: court proceedings

In certain situations, especially in cases with a high reputational impact, it may be worth going to court to enforce the right to be forgotten. This usually happens when the data protection authority dismisses the complaint in its decision, the case raises relevant or disputed legal issues, and the personal, professional, or financial harm is significant.

The court will carry out an individualized assessment of the balance between the right to personal data protection and the right to information.

In cases of rejection, it is advisable to seek the opinion of a specialized law firm such as Arthur & Marin, to determine whether to appeal, before which body, and on what legal basis and with what supporting elements.

Does the right to be forgotten on Google apply to legal entities?

A common question is whether the right to be forgotten can also be exercised by legal entities, such as companies, associations, or foundations. Strictly speaking, the right to be forgotten is recognized by the GDPR and European case law only for natural persons, since the GDPR protects personal data linked to identifiable individuals. In fact, Google states that it assesses privacy rights of individuals and requires personal identity documentation.

💡 However, in practice there are indirect ways to act when search results affect a legal entity.

First, many searches about companies indirectly include personal data of directors, founders, executives, or partners. In these cases, the right to be forgotten can be exercised from the perspective of the natural person, even if the impact is primarily business-related. In addition, when search results contain false, inaccurate, or outdated information about a company, other legal avenues may be used, such as intellectual property (copyright), unfair competition rules, or direct actions for reputational harm. Therefore, although a legal entity cannot directly invoke the GDPR right to be forgotten, it is possible to design a strategy to remove or mitigate negative search results. Read our article on the right to be forgotten for entrepreneurs and professionals.

Checklist of documents and evidence

To submit a right to be forgotten request to Google, it is important to support it with documentation. In practice, many requests are rejected due to formal errors (incomplete URLs, poorly identified searches) or lack of evidence. Below is a checklist to review the required documentation.

1) Screenshots of Google search results with date and exact search

• Take screenshots showing the result exactly as it appears on Google.
• Always include the date (either visible in the screenshot or in the file name).
• Indicate the full first and last name and, where applicable, common variations (second surname, compound name, professional name).

💡 Why this matters: Google assesses a specific search query. If it is not clear which search generates the result, the request may be dismissed.

2) Exact URLs of the results

• Copy and paste the full URL of each result you are asking to be de-indexed.
• Check whether there is a mobile version, AMP version, or a different subdomain, and include it if it also ranks.
• If the same content appears on several websites or domains, include each URL separately.

‼️ Common mistake: listing only the main page of the website instead of the exact link where the information appears.

3) Official documents or certificates

When the result refers to past events that no longer reflect the current situation, it is advisable to include:

• Dismissal orders, case closures, or acquittal judgments.
• Administrative decisions or certificates of criminal record cancellation.
• Any public document confirming that the matter was resolved.

💡 Added value: these documents often carry decisive weight in the balancing process.

4) Detailed explanation of the harm caused

It is not enough to say that it “harms reputation.” It is important to be specific:

• Professional harm: rejection in recruitment processes, loss of clients, professional difficulties.
• Contractual or financial harm: problems renting property, hiring services, or closing agreements.
• Personal or reputational harm: stigmatization, unnecessary exposure of data, disproportionate impact.

Whenever possible, link the harm to the present moment and explain why the result is no longer relevant today.

💡 Example and practical case: “This result from 2016 appears when searching my full name and does not reflect that the proceedings were closed. In recent months it has led to rejections in recruitment processes, as shown in the attached emails.”

Successful case studies on Google’s right to be forgotten

Throughout our professional practice, we have handled many right to be forgotten procedures before Google, both at the administrative stage and before national data protection authorities, and even in court proceedings. Below are real cases that show how the right to be forgotten is applied in practice, which criteria make the difference, and what results can be achieved with the right approach.

Case 1 | Removal of old judicial news after the case was closed

Profile of the affected person: Technical professional, with no media exposure or public profile.

Problem: When searching their name on Google, several news articles published more than eight years earlier appeared, related to a criminal investigation that was ultimately closed without charges.

Legal strategy applied: Documentation proving the definitive closure of the proceedings was provided. The request was based on the loss of public relevance of the facts and the current harm caused by the continued presence of the links in the person’s professional life. The request was structured and legally argued.

Result: Google accepted the request and the links stopped appearing in searches made using the person’s name.

💡 Added value: This case shows that the truthfulness of a news article does not prevent de-indexing when it has lost public interest and causes disproportionate harm.

Case 2 | Partial right to be forgotten for a business owner with media exposure

Profile of the affected person: Business owner with visibility in their sector, but without public office or institutional relevance.

Problem: Searches for their name on Google continued to show results related to a commercial issue that had occurred more than ten years earlier, negatively affecting relationships with clients and investors.

Legal strategy applied: The request was submitted selectively, without seeking to remove all results indiscriminately. It was based on the outdated nature of the information and the lack of proportionality between its informational value and the current reputational impact.

Result: Google accepted the request and removed the requested links, while keeping those unrelated to the commercial dispute.

💡 Added value: This case shows that the right to be forgotten is not always all or nothing, and that a targeted strategy can be more effective.

Case 3 | Reversal of a rejection through an appeal to the data protection authority

Problem: Google initially rejected the right to be forgotten request, considering that there was a public interest in the information shown in search results.

Legal strategy applied: After the rejection, an appeal was filed with the data protection authority. As part of the appeal, Google’s balancing of rights was reviewed, additional evidence was submitted, and the legal arguments were strengthened by relying on relevant European case law.

Result: The data protection authority upheld the complaint and ordered Google to remove the links.

💡 Added value: This case shows that an initial rejection by Google does not end the process and that an administrative appeal can be decisive when it is well supported.

Case 4 | Protection of professional reputation against out-of-context information

Profile of the affected person: Professional with an established career and ongoing activity in their field.

Problem: Searches for their name on Google showed an initial administrative sanction, without mentioning that the sanction had later been annulled. This omission created an inaccurate and harmful professional image by presenting incomplete and out-of-context information.

Legal strategy applied: Documentation proving the annulment of the sanction was provided. The request was based on the incomplete and misleading nature of the indexed information, with special emphasis on the current reputational harm caused in the professional’s work.

Result: Google accepted the request and de-indexed the results linked to the professional’s name.

💡 Added value: This case shows that the right to be forgotten applies not only to old facts, but also to information that is incomplete, outdated, or lacks the necessary context to reflect the person’s current situation.

Case 5 | Negative assessment (non-viable case)

Profile of the applicant: Person with a public profile and significant media presence.

Problem: The applicant considered removing search results linked to recent events that had public relevance and clear informational interest.

Strategy applied: A legal analysis of the case was carried out to assess the chances of success. As a result, the limits of the right to be forgotten and the incompatibility of the request with the legal framework were explained.

Result: After receiving advice, the decision was made not to submit a de-indexing request to Google.

💡 Added value: This case shows that real professional experience is not only about knowing how to act, but also about knowing when not to start a procedure, saving time and unnecessary costs.

Does de-indexing under the right to be forgotten apply only in Europe or worldwide?

De-indexing under the right to be forgotten on Google generally has a European scope. In practice, when Google accepts a request, the link is removed from the European versions of the search engine (such as google.es, google.fr, google.it, etc.), and a geoblocking measure is also applied so that users searching from within the European Union do not see that result, even if they access google.com.

However, outside the EU the link may still remain visible in the search engine, which does not constitute a breach under the current criteria of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Only in exceptional cases, properly justified and usually following the intervention of a data protection authority or a judicial body, could removal with broader effects be considered.

Statistical volume of the “right to be forgotten” on Google (EU)

To better understand the scope of the right to be forgotten (and why Google reviews each case individually), it is useful to look at the public figures from Google’s Transparency Report on de-indexing requests in the EU. Since 2014, Google has de-indexed more than three million web pages from search results associated with a person’s name within the European context.

As a historical reference for volume and trends, by mid-January 2017 there were 671,463 requests reported and 1,852,776 URLs evaluated, with an approximate removal rate of 43.2% of the URLs processed.

Conclusions drawn from the data

• Sustained growth in volume: The increase in the number of de-indexed URLs shows that this is a well-established and growing mechanism.
• Removal rate: The percentages show that Google rejects a portion of requests after balancing privacy against the public interest. This is why professional advice is so important.
• Domains that appear most frequently: In public communications, Google has indicated that among the domains most often appearing in requested URLs are platforms such as Facebook, Badoo, YouTube, and Google Groups, and that the countries with the highest number of requests are France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Italy.

Protect your reputation with a well-prepared request that makes the difference

In the right to be forgotten, the difference between success and rejection often lies in how the request is analyzed and legally argued from the outset. The right to be forgotten is not automatic; it requires assessing the public interest, how old the information is, the situation of the affected person, and the real impact on their life. A well-prepared request helps avoid mistakes and maximizes the chances of success. For this reason, before starting any procedure or appealing a decision by Google, it is essential to have advice from our specialists in European Union Law and to define the most appropriate strategy.

Contact us with no obligation at info@arthurmarin.com or by phone at +32 465 345 345 to protect your information and reputation.

‼️ The longer your information remains on Google, the greater the negative impact on your reputation.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | The right to be forgotten on Google

1) What exactly is the right to be forgotten on Google?

It is the right to request that certain links no longer appear in Google search results when your name is searched, if those results contain personal data and their publication is outdated, irrelevant, or disproportionate.

2) Does the right to be forgotten delete content from the Internet?

No. The content is not removed from the original website (for example, a news article on a digital newspaper). What is achieved is de-indexing, meaning the link no longer appears on Google when your name is searched.

3) In which cases is a request more likely to be accepted?

There are usually better chances when the information is old, has lost relevance, is out of context, is inaccurate, or when the current reputational harm is disproportionate and there is no public interest.

4) When can Google legally reject the right to be forgotten?

Google may reject it if there is current public interest, if you are a person with a public profile, if the information is recent, or if it is linked to professional activities that are relevant to third parties (for example, consumers or clients).

5) How long does Google take to respond to a request?

There is no fixed deadline. In practice, Google usually responds within a few weeks, although the time depends on the complexity of the case and the documentation provided.

6) What do I need to submit a proper request?

At a minimum, you need the exact URLs you want removed, to indicate which search of your name shows those results, screenshots or evidence, and supporting documentation if available (for example, record cancellations, official certificates, court decisions), along with solid legal reasoning.

7) Can I request the right to be forgotten if the information is true?

Yes, in some cases. The fact that information is true does not mean it must remain visible in search engines forever. If it is old, has lost relevance, or its publication is disproportionate, de-indexing may apply.

8) Is the result removed in all countries?

Not always. De-indexing usually applies within the EU. Depending on the case, the link may still appear in searches outside Europe, which may require additional measures.

11) Does the right to be forgotten exist for legal entities (companies)?

Not strictly. The right to be forgotten applies to natural persons. However, a company may act indirectly when results include personal data of directors or managers, or through other legal avenues.

12) What if the result appears when searching my full name, but not when searching only my surname?

This is common. The right to be forgotten is mainly assessed when the result appears in a search that clearly identifies a person (usually full name or an equivalent combination). If it appears only with your full name, this can strengthen your request.

13) Can I request the right to be forgotten if the link appears in Google Images or “News”?

Yes, if the image or news item involves the processing of personal data and appears when your name is searched. In practice, it is handled in the same way. For Images, it is important to identify both the image URL and the source page. For News, how current the information is and the public interest are key.

14) Can the right to be forgotten be applied to social media links (Facebook, X, LinkedIn, Instagram) that appear on Google?

Yes, if those links contain personal data and appear when your name is searched, you can request de-indexing on Google. However, if the content remains visible on the social network, it may still be accessible within that platform. Often, the best strategy is to request de-indexing on Google and manage the issue on the social network itself (privacy settings, removal, or reporting where appropriate).

15) Is it better to ask the media outlet to remove or update the article before contacting Google?

It depends on the case, but it is often advisable. If the media outlet corrects, updates, or removes the content, the issue is usually resolved more fully. However, if the outlet does not cooperate, takes too long, or the article is disproportionate, it may be reasonable to go directly to Google.

16) Which documents increase the chances of success the most?

Documents that prove objective facts and reduce interpretation. In general, the following are very helpful:

• Case dismissal or judgment (if there was a legal proceeding).
• Official certificates (for example, record cancellation where applicable).
• Administrative decisions annulling sanctions.
• Corrections or updates published by the media.
• Proof of inaccuracy (for example, missing key outcomes).
  In addition, it is always important to include screenshots of the result and to explain the current harm clearly and in a verifiable way.

17) What if the content is republished on another website after Google removes it?

This happens often (republishing, aggregators, copies). The response is to act in layers:

• identify the new URL and request de-indexing for that link;
• if it is an unlawful or inaccurate copy, contact the new publisher (removal or correction);
• if it keeps happening, consider legal action or a broader strategy.
  A previous removal does not automatically block future republications.

18) Can Google remove results if the information is correct but shows my photo or links me to someone else?

Yes. Even if the information is correct, if the result wrongly identifies you (identity confusion) or links your photo or name to events involving someone else, there are grounds to request de-indexing due to inaccuracy or lack of context. In these cases, it is important to provide clear proof of the confusion.

19) How does the right to be forgotten affect negative reviews or forum comments? Can they be removed?

It depends. Reviews and forums usually involve two scenarios. Legitimate negative opinions are harder to remove if there is consumer interest and no rights violation. However, when unnecessary personal data is included (address, ID number, phone number) or there is identity misuse, de-indexing is much more likely. Illegal or false content (insults, personal data, threats) is also often successfully addressed.

20) Can I request the right to be forgotten using only surnames or an artistic name?

Yes. It is possible to request de-indexing using surnames, a first name and one surname, or an artistic, professional name, or alias, as long as that is how the person is usually identified in the results.

21) Can a link from the BOE or an official gazette be de-indexed?

In general, it is difficult. Links from the BOE or other official gazettes have strong public interest, as they serve a transparency and legal certainty function. However, de-indexing is not impossible.

22) What if there are several people with the same name (identity confusion)?

If a result is wrongly associated with someone because they share the same name as another person, it is important to explain this and provide proof that the content does not refer to the applicant. In these cases, Google often views de-indexing favorably to prevent someone from being unfairly linked to events that are not theirs. The key is to show that the search by that name leads to incorrect identification.