If the information is already legally public, there is no case.
The original "right to be forgotten" case heard by the CJEU was essentially that information was already out there but was no longer fairly representative of the individual concerned and that this resulted in harm to that individual.
But google IS displaying info indiscriminately what RTBF doing is distort that perfection.
But Google is not the whole picture here.
This issue primarily affects people who have incorrect or misleading information about them floating around on the Internet. That situation may or may not have been their fault in any way, but it nevertheless makes them much more vulnerable in this sense.
The operation of a site like Google, if it perpetuates such information without ensuring its appropriateness first, then dramatically increases the resulting vulnerability, which the individual still may or may not actually deserve.
In other contexts, if you repeat a harmful lie about someone, you are as guilty of defamation as whoever told you that lie in the first place. I see no compelling argument that the same should not apply to online search tools, just because it's inconvenient for their business model of automating everything with minimal human interactions.
The original "right to be forgotten" case heard by the CJEU was essentially that information was already out there but was no longer fairly representative of the individual concerned and that this resulted in harm to that individual.
But google IS displaying info indiscriminately what RTBF doing is distort that perfection.
But Google is not the whole picture here.
This issue primarily affects people who have incorrect or misleading information about them floating around on the Internet. That situation may or may not have been their fault in any way, but it nevertheless makes them much more vulnerable in this sense.
The operation of a site like Google, if it perpetuates such information without ensuring its appropriateness first, then dramatically increases the resulting vulnerability, which the individual still may or may not actually deserve.
In other contexts, if you repeat a harmful lie about someone, you are as guilty of defamation as whoever told you that lie in the first place. I see no compelling argument that the same should not apply to online search tools, just because it's inconvenient for their business model of automating everything with minimal human interactions.