Deleting Google Search Results

There are two ways to remove search results. On the one hand, you can request the operator of the specific website (i.e., the corresponding content’s publisher) to remove it. Once the entries on the website have been removed, the search engines will no longer display the related search results. However, this can take some time, depending on how frequently the search engines’ database is updated. Therefore, on the other hand, you can submit a deletion request directly to Google or the operator of another relevant search engine to speed up this process. The search engine operators provide corresponding forms on the internet for this purpose.

Acting against individual websites that provide specific content can take a lot of effort and time. It may be easier to achieve the desired success by filing a deletion request with Google. However, dealing with Google can also mean a lengthy process with a lot of justification and direct action against the website operator may seem more sensible. It is often advisable to pursue both paths in parallel and to request both the operator of the source and the search engine operator to remove the infringing content. If the requests are not complied with, a warning letter may follow. With this, the specific claim for deletion or injunctive relief is asserted.

In addition, the data subject can also contact the State Data Protection Commissioner. A complaint can be submitted to the data protection commissioner using an online form. The State Data Protection Commissioner has various powers of investigation and redress to enforce the right to erasure.

As a last resort, the filing of a complaint can be considered. In case of urgency, provisional legal protection may also be applied.

If you would like Google to remove search results, you can submit a deletion request. This is done by filling out a form provided by Google. A distinction must be made between removing personal data for data protection reasons and removing content for other legal reasons, such as copyright infringement or circumvention. If several entries are to be deleted, a form must be filled out for each entry.

Personal data is data by which a person can be identified. This includes name, contact details such as address, telephone number or email address, the number of an official identification document, and bank account or credit card numbers. For example, a request can be made to delete intimate personal pictures and other content from private life. In addition, a request can be made to delete medical information, financial information, and contact details passed on with malicious or harassing intent (so-called doxing).

The removal of a Google entry will only be impelente if there is a plausible justification. An individual examination of each case is carried out, which involves balancing the individual’s rights, such as data protection and copyright, against the public interest in the information and the right to process information.

The cancellation request must state the country of origin and the applicant’s name. The request can also be submitted by an authorised representative on behalf of another person. Furthermore, an email address for queries must be provided and (depending on the specific form) a document for proof of identity must be uploaded as a file.

The applicant must identify the personal data or content and location to be removed. For this purpose, the relevant URL(s) and all their variants must be identified. In addition, a reason for removal must be given. In the case of the form for deletion due to European data protection, a reason must be provided for this. On the one hand, it is stated how the personal data are related to the person for whom the request is made. Secondly, it explains why personal data should be removed from the search results. A detailed and correct justification of why the content is infringing is required. The infringement should be presented in a comprehensible manner. An experienced lawyer should be consulted for this purpose.

The application form must be filled out completely and correctly so that the application can be processed. Finally, the application must be dated and signed.

The duration of the processing of the application depends on the individual case. It often takes two to three weeks. If Google grants the request and completes the desired deletion, the entry concerned will no longer be listed in Google Search. However, the content remains on the corresponding website, so links remain. They are, therefore, still available on the internet. Despite this, removing the entry from the search results is worth a lot because, without the listing in the search results, no attention is drawn to the content in the first place. This makes it invisible to most. It should also be noted that due to European data protection laws, the deletion form is only valid within the EU, Iceland, Norway, Lichtenstein and Switzerland.

If Google does not grant the request to remove the content, contacting Google again with a warning may be advisable. It is advisable to seek the support of a lawyer to prepare a legally sound statement of reasons for your deletion request. However, if a warning does not help either, a lawsuit for an obligation to delete against Google can be considered. Our German lawyers will carefully review your case and ensure that proper steps are taken to remove Google listings.

Search engines have an autocomplete function, which automatically completes the search entries. The search suggestions displayed in this way can constitute a violation of the law. This is the case, for example, if the function displays false factual claims as search suggestions. This may violate the general right of personality.

If you want to act against unwanted search suggestions, you should first contact the operator of the search engine itself and request its deletion. The search engine operator is generally only responsible when it becomes aware of the infringement (BGH, judgement of 14 May 2013, file no. VI ZR 269/12). If, after the deletion has not been carried out, a warning has also remained fruitless, legal action should first be taken.

The right of cancellation of personal data is legally called the right to be forgotten. The ECJ named this for the first time in a judgement from 2014 (judgement of 13.5.2014 – C-131/12). The plaintiff demanded deleting their data from search hits indicating an attachment due to social security debts. The challenged content thereby revealed their full name and the address of the foreclosed property. In particular, the plaintiff claimed that the attachment indicated was years ago and that the matter had been settled.

The lawsuit was based on standards of the European Data Protection Directive of 1995. The ECJ ruled: If personal data are no longer relevant in terms of time, continued retention of this information violates data protection rules. This ruling shaped the internet fundamental right to be forgotten.

As the successor to the 1995 Data Protection Directive, the GDPR was introduced in 2018, with it, Article 17 of the GDPR, which is decisive for the right to be forgotten.

This article concludes the list of possible grounds for removal:

• Continuation of purpose,
• revocation of consent,
• objection to processing,
• unlawful processing,
• legal obligation to removal and
• personal data of children.

However, exceptions to the right to be forgotten also apply. There is no right to cancellation if data processing is necessary to exercise the right to freedom of expression and information. This is determined by weighing the public interest in information or freedom of expression against the interest of the data subject in deleting the data.

The website and search engine operators can be obliged to refrain from processing. Only natural persons and, therefore, not companies can invoke German data protection law.

In this context, the general right of personality of the person concerned represents the counterpart to the public’s interest in free communication, information and expression of opinion. However, there can be no public interest regarding untrue factual allegations. These are unlawful and not covered by freedom of expression. Compared to expressions of opinion, facts are amenable to proof. If it is a matter of true factual allegations that affects the privacy of the person concerned, a balancing of interests must occur. Robust and exhaustive presentation of arguments holds paramount significance in matters pertaining to the right to be forgotten, as well as the delicate equilibrium between this right and the prerogative of freedom of expression. A balancing of interests occurs in the case of expressions of opinion that encroach on the general right of personality.

Violations of the general right of personality are asserted in the case of defamatory criticism and insults. It should be noted that the person concerned must accept criticism, even if it is exaggerated. It must also be considered whether the person is a public figure. In the case of defamatory criticism, however, the right of personality is violated. This is because it is ostensibly about defaming the person concerned. The aim is to disparage the person without further dispute on the merits.

The search engine operator is not the author of the infringement. However, a “Stoererhaftung” (Interference liability) can be considered because the search engine operator reports the entry violating the right of personality. However, the search engine operator is generally not obliged to check content uploaded to the internet for infringements. Instead, the interference liability requires prior notification of the content infringing the right of personality so that the search engine operator can review it (BGH, judgement of 27 February 2018, file no. VI ZR 489/16).

The decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court from 2019 and the current ruling of the Federal Supreme Court of 23 May 2023 are in addition to the decisions at the European level, particularly relevant regarding the structuring of the right to be forgotten, and thus also about the prerequisites of a right to cancellation.

The case on the Right to be Forgotten I concerned the storage of press reports dating back more than 30 years in an online archive, in which the criminal court conviction of the plaintiff for murder was reported by name. If the plaintiff’s name was searched for via an internet search portal, these press reports appeared among the first hits. The unique feature of the case was that the original reporting had indisputably been lawful. However, the Federal Constitutional Court ultimately upheld the plaintiff’s claim. The interest in public reporting on a criminal offence changed or minimised with increasing time distance from the event.

The court emphasised that the possibility of forgetting was part of the temporality of freedom and that this also applied to the reintegration of offenders. To also preserve the right to freedom of the press, it was admittedly not decided to delete the challenged reports. However, the plaintiff’s name had to be removed from the areas searched by search engines (crawlers) so that the reports no longer appeared in the search engines’ hit list.

The Federal Constitutional Court issued its Right to be Forgotten II decision on the same day. The plaintiff objected to the display of a search result on Google. In the post displayed as a search result, the plaintiff was interviewed about the accusation of unfair treatment of their employees. Again, the actual post was several years old and no longer current. However, their complaint was rejected, notably because the plaintiff had gone public with the post on their own initiative.

Furthermore, the court found that the subject of the contribution was in the continuing public interest. The court also rejected the classification as defamation by dealing with the plaintiff. As a result, the public’s interest in information prevailed. However, it was also emphasised that, over time, the general right of personality of the person concerned would come to the fore.

Recently, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled that Google must comply with requests for deletion if the applicant proves the relevant content is incorrect (ruling of 23 May 2023 – VI ZR 476/18). The plaintiff in this case, who is, among other things, a member of the board of directors and sole shareholder of an investment company, sued together with their partner and authorised signatory against articles that critically portrayed their investment model. In connection with the corresponding articles, photos of the plaintiff were also inserted, the deletion of which was also requested in the proceedings. When the plaintiff’s name was searched, these articles and pictures were always displayed in the search results overview. The publisher of the critical articles and associated pictures was suspected of blackmailing entrepreneurs by offering to delete the critical reports in exchange for money. The plaintiff had also been blackmailed in this way.

First, Google stressed that it could not know which information was incorrect. In line with this argument, the German Court of Appeal also held that the burden of proof was on the person requesting the delisting from the search hits. The plaintiff did not provide such evidence in the present case. After the appeal was dismissed, the plaintiff appealed to the Federal Supreme Court (BGH). The Federal Supreme Court initially decided to involve the Court of Justice of the European Union to clarify the interpretation of EU law relevant to the decision. After the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on 8 December 2022 that the operator of the search engine is only obliged to delete relevant content if the person requesting the deletion provides appropriate and sufficient evidence of the incorrectness of the content, the BGH ruled accordingly:

The search engine operator is only obliged to delete content if the person concerned provides relevant and sufficient evidence that the content is incorrect.

If a company is affected by content on the internet that damages its reputation, its corporate personality rights may be violated. This serves to protect the social validity and respect of a company. It is intended to protect a company’s reputation and, thus, the business from damaging statements. Here, too, a distinction must be made between true and untrue statements of fact. In the case of statements of opinion, it must be examined whether they are still permissible or whether they constitute defamatory criticism. However, the level of criticism a company must accept exceeds that a natural person must endure. This is, therefore, a lesser degree of protection.