News
600.000 EUR fine to Google Belgium for misapplying the right to be forgotten
The right to be forgotten is one of the more complex rights in the GDPR, requiring a careful balancing of principles and interests. In a recent case before the Belgian data protection authority, Google Belgium was accused of interpreting the right too narrowly. The authority agreed, and imposed a significant fine.
The Belgian data protection authority recently examined a case where a citizen complained about a decision by Google, in which Google denied the citizen's invocation of their right to be forgotten. As is typical of such cases, the citizen argued that Google's search engine referenced search results which were dated and no longer relevant, and which were disproportionately harmful to their interests.
The right to be forgotten is one of the more complex rights in the GDPR, requiring a careful balancing of principles and interests. The nature of the data being targeted matters, as does the degree of harm to the data subject, and their personal status: public figures are generally required to bear a broader burden in relation to publications affecting them privately.
This particular case related to a citizen holding a public but non-political office, who used to have an affiliation with a political party. Since these affiliations were publicly known and published in the press (including online), searches for the citizen's name still clearly indicated their past political affiliation. In addition, the citizen had in the past faced legal proceedings for harassment, but this complaint had been dismissed. The complaint still appeared in search results as well. The citizen argued that, since these issues were both a matter of the past, it was no longer reasonable and indeed actively harmful to link them to such articles. Google declined to remove both categories of links.
The authority ultimately sided with the citizen, but only in relation to the harassment complaint. Given the public office held by the citizen, the authority ruled that their past political affiliation was still relevant as being a matter of public interest. The continued linking to the dismissed legal complaint however was deemed to be unlawful, and Google's refusal to suppress these links were deemed a clear violation of the GDPR, given that Google was aware of the dismissal. The authority therefore imposed a 600.000 EUR fine - the highest Belgian fine to date.
The case is highly interesting on two counts. Firstly, it shows the great importance (and arguably unpredictability) of factual assessment in such proceedings: political affiliation was deemed sufficiently relevant to be maintained, dismissed legal complaints were not. The decision might have been very different if the citizen was running for an electable office, and likely also if the complaints had not been dismissed. Search engines are required to engage in a careful balancing act in such matters.
Secondly, the case is relevant because of the relative magnitude of the fine: 600.000 EUR is the highest fine imposed in Belgium thus far, and also a very significant sum for what is ultimately a reasonable disagreement on the outcome of a balancing exercise. However, the Belgian data protection authority continued its reasoning as also set out in prior discussions, taking the turnover of the data controller and its mother company Google Inc (slightly over 161 billion USD) into account as a key yardstick for establishing a fine. Based on that logic and Google's financial position, it qualified the fine as reasonable and proportionate.
https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/publications/beslissing-ten-gronde-nr.-37-2020.pdf
Article provided by: Hans Graux (Time.lex, Belgium)
Discover more about INPLP, the INPLP-Members and the GDPR-FINE database
Dr. Tobias Höllwarth (Managing Director INPLP)
News Archiv
- Alle zeigen
- April 2024
- März 2024
- Februar 2024
- Jänner 2024
- Dezember 2023
- November 2023
- Oktober 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- Juli 2023
- Juni 2023
- Mai 2023
- April 2023
- März 2023
- Februar 2023
- Jänner 2023
- Dezember 2022
- November 2022
- Oktober 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- Juli 2022
- Mai 2022
- April 2022
- März 2022
- Februar 2022
- November 2021
- September 2021
- Juli 2021
- Mai 2021
- April 2021
- Dezember 2020
- November 2020
- Oktober 2020
- Juni 2020
- März 2020
- Dezember 2019
- Oktober 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- Juli 2019
- Juni 2019
- Mai 2019
- April 2019
- März 2019
- Februar 2019
- Jänner 2019
- Dezember 2018
- November 2018
- Oktober 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- Juli 2018
- Juni 2018
- Mai 2018
- April 2018
- März 2018
- Februar 2018
- Dezember 2017
- November 2017
- Oktober 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- Juli 2017
- Juni 2017
- Mai 2017
- April 2017
- März 2017
- Februar 2017
- November 2016
- Oktober 2016
- September 2016
- Juli 2016
- Juni 2016
- Mai 2016
- April 2016
- März 2016
- Februar 2016
- Jänner 2016
- Dezember 2015
- November 2015
- Oktober 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- Juli 2015
- Juni 2015
- Mai 2015
- April 2015
- März 2015
- Februar 2015
- Jänner 2015
- Dezember 2014
- November 2014
- Oktober 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- Juli 2014
- Juni 2014
- Mai 2014
- April 2014
- März 2014
- Februar 2014
- Jänner 2014
- Dezember 2013
- November 2013
- Oktober 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- Juli 2013
- Juni 2013
- Mai 2013
- April 2013
- März 2013
- Februar 2013
- Jänner 2013
- Dezember 2012
- November 2012
- Oktober 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- Juli 2012
- Juni 2012
- Mai 2012
- April 2012
- März 2012
- Februar 2012
- Jänner 2012
- Dezember 2011
- November 2011
- Oktober 2011
- September 2011
- Juli 2011
- Juni 2011
- Mai 2011
- April 2011
- März 2011
- Februar 2011
- Jänner 2011
- November 2010
- Oktober 2010
- September 2010
- Juli 2010