header-logo header-logo

28 May 2014
Issue: 7608 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Legal principles of Google

ECJ ruling “creates new class of data controllers”

The principles of data protection, privacy and the so-called “right to be forgotten” were in “urgent need of attention” before the controversial decision in Google v AEPD and Costeja-Gonzalez C-131/12, and “a great deal more guidance and litigation is required”, says barrister Jocelyn Ledward, of QEB Hollis Whiteman.

The European Court of Justice ruling split opinions both domestically and internationally. The case, in which a man brought an action for Google to delete an auction notice of his repossessed home, has now been remitted to the Spanish courts.

In terms of legal principles, says Ledward, the decision establishes that search engines “process” personal data within the meaning of the EU Directive 95/46/EC and the data Protection Act 1988. “This has wide-ranging implications for those who have previously been considered neutral third party conduits, in terms of privacy and data protection law, creating a whole new class of ‘data controllers’ who must comply with European data protection regimes,” she says.

The potential territorial impact of the ruling is also key—Google’s marketing activities via its Spanish subsidiary bring it within the ambit of the Directive.

The court recognised there has to be a fair balance between the data subject’s rights and the legitimate interest of internet users in accessing information. It found that Google has responsibility for removing links to web pages.

“This opens the door to large numbers of such requests being made and having to be determined, in the first instance by Google and other search engines, in compliance with a large and complex body of European and national law and regulation, with the prospect of referrals to the national data protection agency and litigation beyond,” notes Ledward.

 

Issue: 7608 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll