Businessman wins court fight to be ‘forgotten’ online
A British businessman fighting for the ‘‘right to be forgotten’’ has won a High Court action against Google, the first victory of its kind in the UK.
The internet giant had refused the man’s requests to take down search results linking to 11 publications that referred to his conviction and imprisonment 10 years ago for a surveillance offence. The decision paves the way for more claims by convicted criminals and others embarrassed by online stories.
The judge rejected a similar claim brought by a second businessman who was jailed for a more serious offence. The two cases were contested by Google in separate trials. Both men said their convictions were legally spent and they had been rehabilitated.
The claims, which were brought under data protection law for ‘‘misuse of private information’’, were the first under European rules on the ‘‘right to be forgotten’’.
In 2014, the European Court of Justice ruled that ‘‘irrelevant’’ and outdated information should be removed from search results on request, after a Spanish man claimed that Google had infringed his privacy by linking to information about the repossession of his home.
The company has subsequently received 2.4 million requests to remove information but can reject claims where it believes that public interest in making the facts available outweighs an individual’s right to privacy.
In the recent cases, the man who lost his case complained about Google links providing information on his conviction for ‘‘conspiracy to account falsely’’, for which he received a sentence of four years in prison in the 1990s. He said he had been ‘‘treated as a pariah in his personal, business and social life’’.
The judge said: ‘‘He remains in business, and the information serves the purpose of minimising the risk that he will continue to mislead, as he has in the past.’’
The second man had been sentenced to six months for ‘‘conspiracy to carry out surveillance’’. The judge said he was an ‘‘honest and generally reliable’’ witness, and a delisting order should be made, adding: ‘‘His past offending is of little, if any, relevance to anybody’s assessment of his suitability to engage in relevant business activity now or in the future.’’
Mark Lewis, a partner at London law firm Seddons, said: ‘‘Today’s judgment amounted to a common sense approach being taken that the internet should not be used as a constant reminder of what you used to be but no longer are. But if you are trying to hide your past so that you can repeat your offence, the court will not play ball.’’