Private individuals (or their appointed representatives) contact the search engine concerned, evidence their ID, affirm that specifically identified content is referencing them, and that it is being returned when their name is searched, and provide compelling reasons why they would like it removed.

​When claiming the Right to be Forgotten, an individual must present legitimate reasons for removal to the search engines. These are known as legal grounds.

​To delete articles from Google or Bing, it will not usually be sufficient to rely on one ground, a combination of clearly explained legal arguments will be required in most Right to be Forgotten cases.

This list is a summary and is not exhaustive, each application for deletion of articles from search results should be made and assessed on its own merits.

BREACH OF PRIVACY - Unauthorised disclosure of a data subject's full address, religion, ethnicity, disability, medical data, private images or other sensitive private information (such as enforced disclosure of a criminal record), which has been made public (Sometimes loosely termed DOXXING).

INADEQUATE - The articles are missing important context or key information, or only show one side (perhaps no right of reply was given or an unbiased person or person with a conflict of interest contributed to or wrote the article), or are of such poor quality as to not be good enough to effectively satisfy any possible public interest* or no longer reflect the data subject since their life has changed so substantially (e.g. a former problematic drug user who completed rehabilitation and has been drug free for many years, or a person who committed a crime which is now a spent conviction and no longer disclosable). Give examples of life changes or important information which is missing and which results in an inadequate view being presented, and evidence them if possible.

INACCURATE - Factual inaccuracies of such significance that they overshadow (and even harm) any possible public interest* in the content. Give examples of damaging inaccuracies and evidence them, unless they are clearly untrue to any reasonable person looking objectively, or if they could never be substantiated. (This can overlap with defamation which is a separate area but which has strict time limits).

EXCESSIVE - Inflammatory vulgar or insulting language used to describe a private individual or offensive imagery, any of which exceeds that which would reasonably be expected within such content, or numerous pervasive and repetitive links which distort the public perception of an individual and which would clearly cause an impact which is disproportionate to the purpose of the articles. Clearly explain.

NO LONGER RELEVANT - Old, out of date or insignificant information, e.g. a punishment which has been completed, a conviction which is spent, or references to a business or career which an individual has left or retired from. How long ago the events happened or were made public is important, as well as how they are portrayed compared to how they are today (eg Someone who was in an abusive relationship but subsequently escaped to build a new life, or someone who was addicted to drugs but has lived drug-free for many years). Evidence the irrelevance with key documents where possible e.g. proof of sentence, evidence of acquittal or current employment contract etc.

IMPACT - Clearly state any personal impact. e.g. personal and professional damage, mental suffering, housing and/or employment discrimination, difficulties with interpersonal relationships, impact on family members, risks to personal and family safety etc. If possible, evidence any impacts. Explain that the impact of content appearing in search results is disproportionate to any ongoing public interest*.

PERSONAL PROFILE - Confirm that the data subject is a private individual, not a public figure, with strong rights of privacy. If the individual is in the public eye or public scrutiny is reasonably expected, but this position is unrelated to the content, explain why it is unrelated and that this is a privacy breach. Clearly identify how the individual’s privacy rights override any public interest*.

*Note that “in the public interest” does not mean “that which the public are interested in” (in a curiosity sense), but rather, it means that which it is of benefit to the public to have access to, and that it is of significant importance.

Further detail can be found in the Information Commissioner’s overview of how to remove damaging content from search engine results at https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/online/internet-search-results/ and their helpful criteria for removing articles from Google, Bing, Yahoo and DuckDuckGo search results under the Right to Erasure / Right to be Forgotten https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/search-result-delisting-criteria

Every individual in the UK and EU is entitled to claim the Right to be Forgotten at any time and on multiple occasions if required. However, removal of content from search results is a discretionary, not absolute right. This means that notwithstanding that the right does apply to all individuals, it does not apply to all circumstances, nor to all content, meaning that not everything will be removable at any specific snapshot in time.

Further detail can be found in Google’s transparency report at https://transparencyreport.google.com/eu-privacy/overview?hl=en

The search engines use coding to block (also known as deindexing) the identified articles, images, links and shares from Search Engine Results Pages (SERPs) for any searches which include the name of the private individual who has claimed their Right to be Forgotten.

​Relevant images and articles which appear in SERPs for search terms which include the name of a private individual can be blocked including, but not limited to “first name last name”, “first name last name accused” “first name last name convicted”, “first name last name sentenced”, “first name last name town”, “first name last name car accident” etc

​Images and articles which appear in SERPs for search terms which do not include the name of a private individual will not be blocked, examples of search terms which will continue to return the same results after claiming the Right to be Forgotten include, for example, “man arrested for fraud”, “Company closes after deliberate fire”, “Essex car accident”, "London tragedy 2018_" etc.

If a search engine such as Google refuses to block search results when correctly and reasonably requested to do so under the Right to be Forgotten, then an appeal can be made to The Information Commissioner.

The appeal should include the original grounds for removal, reasons countering the search engines response as well as copies of all correspondence.

Further detail can be found at The Information Commissioners guide to complaining against a search engine for their refusal to remove articles from search results at https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/search-results/

The process can take several months and during this waiting period, it can often be beneficial to make new Right to be Forgotten submissions to the search engines concerned with refined arguments addressing their previous refusal. There is no limit to how many submissions can be made (although if made more than once every 3-6 months, Google systems will reject them as repeated).

No, publishers are no longer informed when articles are blocked or deindexed from SERP's.

Deletion under the Right to be Forgotten is a process that happens in the background, it could be seen as going "over the heads" of the publishers. Effectively, the search engines are the gatekeepers - a higher authority than the publishers, with almost total control over who finds the adverse media. Under the Right to be Forgotten these gatekeepers can be required to fully protect the privacy rights of private individuals.

​

When Google removes an article, Bing deletes an image, or Yahoo blocks a news report, they do not have any lawful basis to notify the website owner and if they were to do so it would be a breach of GDPR and a violation of the individual's right to privacy.

​No, people searching names of private individuals are not informed when articles are blocked, or deindexed under the Right to be Forgotten.

Instead, whenever any name is searched in the UK and EU, Google presents a general disclaimer at the bottom of each SERP (At all times, whether any Right to be Forgotten applications have been made or not, and whether any results have been removed or not) "Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe. Learn more"