NT1 v Google LLC
In the first English trial of a claim under the right to be forgotten, one businessman with a spent conviction obtained the delisting of search results about it, but another did not.
Facts
NT1 and NT2 were businessmen who had been convicted of criminal offences many years earlier, and whose convictions had become spent. NT1 had been convicted of conspiracy to account falsely in connection with a property business, and sentenced to four years' imprisonment. NT2 had been convicted of offences of phone tapping and surveillance in connection with his business, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. Each asked Google to remove from its search results links to newspaper reports about their convictions, relying on the decision of the Court of Justice in Google Spain. Google refused, and they brought claims under the Data Protection Act 1998 and for misuse of private information.
Legal principle
Warby J dismissed NT1's claim and allowed NT2's claim. He said that the court must balance the claimant's rights to privacy and data protection against the rights of Google and the public to freedom of expression and information, taking account of the guidance issued by European data protection authorities. NT1 had played a role in public life, his offending involved dishonesty and he had shown no remorse, so the information remained relevant to the public's assessment of him. NT2's crime had not involved dishonesty, he had pleaded guilty and shown remorse, and the information was now out of date and irrelevant, so its continued availability was not justified. NT2 was not awarded damages, because Google had taken reasonable care to comply with its obligations.
Related cases on lawful processing, data subject rights and the right to be forgotten
- Dawson-Damer v Taylor Wessing LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 74
- GC v Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) (2019) Case C-136/17
- Google LLC v Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) (2019) Case C-507/17
- Google Spain SL v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González Case C-131/12, EU:C:2014:317
- Ittihadieh v 5-11 Cheyne Gardens RTM Co Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 121
- Meta Platforms Inc v Bundeskartellamt Case C-252/21, EU:C:2023:537
- OQ v Land Hessen (SCHUFA Holding) (2023) Case C-634/21
- R (Open Rights Group) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWCA Civ 800
Studying data protection and technology law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
