header-logo header-logo

22 July 2020
Issue: 7896 / Categories: Features , Privacy , Human rights
printer mail-detail

The Right to Erasure: an (edited?) history

24639
The evolution of the right to erasure & how it is now being used in practice, by Alex Keenlyside & Hannah Crowther
  • 2014: the CJEU establishes a ‘right to be forgotten’.
  • 2018: the GDPR introduces a ‘right to erasure’.

It’s been over six years since the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) first established a ‘right to be forgotten’ in 2014, in the fight by Mr Costeja to have links to news articles about his bankruptcy de-listed from Google Search results (Google Spain SL and another company v Agencia Espanola de proteccion de Datos (AEPD) and another, [2014] All ER (D) 124 (May)). Then, in 2018, the GDPR introduced the far more expansive (if rather less poetic) ‘right to erasure’, exercisable against any controller. In this article, we consider the evolution of the right in the UK, and how it is now being used in practice.

In Costeja, the CJEU decided that news articles and other content, even if lawfully published online, should no longer be listed in response to a Google

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll