Class Action vs Google · upheld by the Court of Milan
Report

Dossier · Google Class Action

GoogleClass Action

  • Collective injunction action
  • Court of Milan
  • Upheld5 October 2026

The Court of Milan has upheld the collective injunction action against Google. Google will have to let people attach documents to their delisting requests and give reasons for any refusal.

Report your experienceClass action website
Read the decision
The decision[01]

Press release · Milan, 5 October 2026

Right to be forgotten: the Court of Milan orders Google to change its procedures for handling users’ requests

Status of the action

Status of the action: Ongoing

Upheld

The collective injunction action brought by some members of Algopolio has been upheld. Google will have to allow users to submit documents supporting their delisting requests, and will have to give reasons for any refusal in a way that can be understood immediately.

The Court of Milan has upheld the collective injunction action brought by some members of the Algopolio association against Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited and Google Italy S.r.l.

The decision censures the way Google handles the requests users make to exercise the right to be forgotten under Articles 17 and 21 of the GDPR, recognising that the current procedures in fact prevent its exercise.

Read the press release (Italian)

What the Court ordered

  1. Order 01

    Attach documents

    Contested procedure: Only an identity document can be attached to the form.

    Court order: Google will have to change the procedures and forms available to users, allowing them to attach documentation supporting their delisting request.

  2. Order 02

    Give reasons for refusal

    Contested procedure: Rejections give no specific reason.

    Court order: Google will have to give reasons for any refusal, based on an assessment of the documents submitted by the person concerned, so that they can understand those reasons immediately and effectively.

Deadline for Google

Remaining

39days

The 15 November 2026 deadline has passed.

By this date Google will have to change its procedures and forms.

In case of delay

A substantial financial penalty for each day of delay in complying with the order.

Legal basis
Arts. 17 and 21 GDPRThe right to be forgotten, exercised under Articles 17 and 21 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation.
Jurisdiction
Italian, including over Google LLCThe Court issued the order against Google LLC as well, overcoming the objection of lack of jurisdiction raised by its defence.
Defendants
Google LLC · Google Ireland Limited · Google Italy S.r.l.The three companies against which the collective injunction action was brought.
What it means[02]

What the decision means

The decision is an important step towards the full effectiveness of a right provided for by the GDPR, with implications of national and European significance.

Effective rights

A decision that strengthens and protects the need for rights to be effective in the digital environment.

The decision is particularly significant because it addresses not only the handling of individual requests, but the functioning of the procedure through which users can exercise, against a global search engine, a right recognised by European law.

The issue was at the heart of the action launched in November 2025, in which some members of Algopolio, together with other applicants, challenged Google’s procedures for handling delisting requests as standardised and not adequately individualised.

Prof. Vincenzo Morabito

Our battle has always been, first and foremost, a battle for the effectiveness of fundamental rights. A right truly exists only if a person is put in a position to exercise it. The point is to act on a mechanism that has a concrete impact on people’s lives and on their ability to defend their reputation and dignity. The Court’s decision addresses precisely that mechanism: anyone who turns to Google must be able to present their case in full, submit the necessary documentation and understand the reasons for any refusal.

Prof. Vincenzo MorabitoPresident of Algopolio and first applicantTranslated from Italian.

Italy · European Union

An issue that goes beyond Italy’s borders

The Court of Milan’s ruling concerns the practical application of Articles 17 and 21 of the GDPR, and therefore raises an issue whose relevance may extend well beyond the single Italian proceedings.

The right to be forgotten is recognised by European law, and Google operates through procedures intended for millions of users in the Union. The Italian decision is pioneering in ensuring and guaranteeing protection for all users in the Union.

The decision is of undoubted interest for the protection of fundamental rights in two respects. On the procedural level, it clarifies the complex issues underlying the establishment of Italian jurisdiction over class and collective actions brought against the web giants, thus ensuring the right of access to a court. On the substantive level, the Court reads European legislation in the light of the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU, requiring individualised, non-automated procedures to protect the right to be forgotten.

Prof. Barbara Randazzo, attorneyORALEX law firm · counsel for the applicantsTranslated from Italian.

The Court has finally given substance to a protection provided by the GDPR that Google’s procedures had devalued and reduced to a mere formality. It is also very positive that the Court, as requested, decided to issue the order against Google LLC, overcoming the objection of lack of jurisdiction raised by its defence. The finding of Italian jurisdiction for a dispute of this kind also strengthens users’ protection.

Silvia Cossu, attorneyLEXIA law firm · counsel for the applicantsTranslated from Italian.

Statements from the press release of 5 October 2026.

The case file[03]

Who brought the action

In November 2025 some members of the Algopolio association, together with other applicants, assisted by lawyers Prof. Barbara Randazzo and Ruggero Rudoni of the ORALEX law firm and by lawyers Francesco Dagnino and Silvia Cossu of the LEXIA law firm, brought a collective injunction action against Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited and Google Italy S.r.l. The first applicant is Prof. Vincenzo Morabito, President of Algopolio.

Case summary
01Type of action
Collective injunction action
02Court
Court of Milan
03Launched
November 2025
04Applicants
Some members of the Algopolio association, together with other applicantsFirst applicant: Prof. Vincenzo Morabito
05Defendants
Google LLC · Google Ireland Limited · Google Italy S.r.l.
06Subject
Handling of delisting requests and protection of the right to be forgottenArts. 17 and 21 GDPR
07Status
Upheld5 October 2026
08Deadline for Google
15 November 2026With a substantial financial penalty for each day of delay
The subject[04]

The subject

The Class Action against Google challenged the systematic rejection of delisting and removal requests through standardised, non-personalised procedures, adopted even in substantial circumvention of specific orders of the Italian Data Protection Authority.

This is not just about removing isolated links, but about stopping the systemic mechanism that lets falsehoods spread and stay accessible for years, turning insinuations and errors into “digital truths” that are hard to erase.

— The lawyers involved
A human face crossed by fragments of data

A single search result

…can decide the fate of an individual or a business.

How it began

A machine that does not listen

The Google Class Action was born from a group of people who for years fought in silence against a machine that does not listen.

Each of them has a different story, but the same pain: being reduced to a link, to a page, to a prejudice that regenerates every time someone types their name.

Behind every false news item that is indexed there is a life on hold, a lost job, a distorted identity.

This initiative was born to turn that suffering into civic action, to give victims back their voice and to make the public aware that the power of algorithms cannot be absolute.

Google continued to index and disseminate false and harmful content even after receiving documented evidence and formal notices. For some people, this meant ruined reputations, lost jobs, financial and personal ruin.

The reasons[05]

Three reasons, one principle

Chapter I

Truth is not an opinion.

Search engines present themselves as mere intermediaries and claim no responsibility for content. Yet every result shows how algorithmic choices can amplify falsehoods, create arbitrary correlations, favour certain sources and bring back to the surface information that has already been disproved.

This is not neutrality: it is the steering of information.

And when what is being steered is the truth, we are facing a new form of power: unelected, unaccountable and potentially decisive.

Chapter II

The right to be forgotten as the last bastion of dignity.

Every person has the right not to be defined forever by a mistake, a suspicion or a lie.

The European Court of Justice and the Italian Court of Cassation have recognised that the right to be forgotten does not erase history: it restores proportion and context.123

Google, instead, keeps storing, indexing and relaunching content that the courts have already disproved or dismissed, perpetuating a harm that is renewed every day, in every search.

When a lie stays online for years, it is no longer information: it is a civil sentence with no appeal.

Chapter III

Economic and moral damage: when reputation is destroyed by the algorithm.

The people involved in this class action have lost contracts, clients, job opportunities and personal relationships.

Many have suffered deep psychological harm, made worse by the impossibility of defending themselves against an automated system that neither listens nor answers.

The Court of Milan has already recognised in several cases that Google’s late delisting is a source of compensable damage.4

This class action sought an injunction: a court order to stop the unlawful conduct, delist false news and enforce respect for digital rights.

But it also asked for a moral principle: that dignity must not be sacrificed to indexing.

The alleged violations[06]

Four alleged violations

The class action argued that Google systematically and structurally applies an unlawful delisting procedure, contrary to the GDPR, that infringes the fundamental rights of a very large number of people.

  1. Count 01Right to be forgotten →

    No way to submit evidence

    Google’s procedure does not allow people to send documents proving the falsity, obsolescence or unlawfulness of the content to be delisted, effectively emptying the right to be forgotten.

  2. Count 02Arts. 17 and 21 GDPR

    No individual assessment

    Replies are standardised, impersonal, identical and make no reference to the specific case; Google performs no balancing between competing rights, as required by Articles 17 and 21 GDPR.

  3. Count 03Art. 22 GDPR

    No reasons given, no right to be heard

    Google does not explain why it rejects requests and offers no human contact, suggesting a fully automated procedure, in possible breach of Article 22 GDPR.

  4. Count 04Right to be forgotten →

    Incomplete removal of URLs

    Google does not remove all related URLs nor their equivalent variants, undermining the effectiveness of the right to be forgotten.

According to the application, these practices are not isolated errors but systematic violations, capable of affecting an indefinite number of citizens, and therefore perfectly suited to a class action.

The procedure[07]

How it is. How it must be.

The collective injunction action aimed to speed up delisting by asking the Court of Milan to order Google to change its procedure, which should be completely different from today’s automated and opaque model. The Court upheld the action: by 15 November 2026 Google will have to change its procedures and forms, allowing documentation to be attached to requests and giving reasons for any refusal.

  1. Google’s procedure today: A rigid form with no way to attach evidence.

    Procedure sought by the class action: Open to supporting documents.

  2. Google’s procedure today: No human contact.

    Procedure sought by the class action: Handled by real people.

  3. Google’s procedure today: No right to be heard.

    Google’s procedure today: Automatic, impersonal replies.

    Google’s procedure today: No real assessment at all.

    Procedure sought by the class action: Transparent and reasoned.

In a word: effective.

Without these requirements, the class action argued, the right to be forgotten risks being emptied of any effect. The Court’s decision recognises that the current procedures in fact prevent its exercise.

The delisting procedure should allow the person concerned to attach supporting evidence, and require Google to carry out a concrete, individual assessment of the case: examining the specific circumstances, balancing the right to reputation against freedom of information, and clearly stating the reasons for any rejection. The reply cannot be standardised or automatic, and there must be a human contact.

05How Google’s procedure works today, step by step

  1. A rigid, pre-filled online form

    Users must fill in a standard form on Google’s website, where they can:

    • enter their personal data;
    • list the URLs to be removed;
    • write a short explanation;
    • attach only an identity document.

    It is not possible to upload evidence, articles, judgments, orders, certificates or any other material useful for assessing the request.

  2. No interaction, no right to be heard, no human contact

    The form offers no way to engage in a dialogue:

    • there is no human point of contact;
    • no response time is given;
    • further clarifications or additions cannot be sent;
    • users cannot reply or better explain their position.

    It is an entirely one-sided, closed procedure.

  3. Automatic, standardised replies, identical for everyone

    Google always replies with emails that are:

    • automated;
    • identical in wording (the same text for different cases);
    • missing the requester’s name;
    • generically signed by the “Google Team”.

    There is no reference to the specific case or to the content cited by the user. The reply is the same copy-paste every time, even when facts, content, URLs or reasons change.

  4. No individual assessment

    The replies show that Google does not assess the merits of requests:

    • it does not check whether the contested content is true;
    • it does not balance the right to be forgotten against freedom of information;
    • it does not examine whether the news is outdated;
    • it does not take into account court rulings or orders of the Data Protection Authority.

    Rejections give no specific reason, only generic sentences with no real content.

  5. No complete removal of URLs

    Even when Google removes a URL, it does not remove:

    • copies of the article;
    • English-language versions;
    • mirror pages;
    • internal links;
    • images;
    • search suggestions (“autocomplete”).

    Delisting is therefore partial or entirely ineffective.

The requests[08]

What the action asked for

The action sought an injunction: a court order to stop the unlawful conduct, delist false news and enforce respect for digital rights.

  1. Request 01 / 02

    Delisting request

    An individual assessment, not a pre-filled reply.

    The first contested practice concerns how the search engine handles every delisting request: with automatic, pre-filled, impersonal replies, identical for every user, without any concrete analysis of the facts. According to the application, the procedure is structurally inadequate and breaches the duty of individual assessment imposed by the GDPR.

  2. Request 02 / 02

    Verification protocol

    Fixed deadlines, reasoned decisions, human oversight.

    The second point asked Google to set up a verification and rapid-response protocol for all complaints about false or harmful content. Anyone who suffers digital harm is forced to deal with automated systems that do not answer, do not explain and take no responsibility. The injunction sought a transparent mechanism, with fixed deadlines and reasoned decisions, that guarantees human, verifiable oversight.

The principle

Not compensation, but a principle

That an algorithm cannot keep violating people’s rights: when those rights are assessed, there must always be a human being.

Request for an injunction[09]

The request, point by point

The class action asked the Court of Milan to issue an injunction against Google, requiring it to radically change its delisting procedure. In particular, it asked that Google be ordered to:

  1. Adopt a GDPR-compliant procedure

    With non-negotiable minimum requirements, including:

    • the possibility for users to attach supporting evidence to their request;
    • a concrete, individual and transparent assessment of the case;
    • a ban on standardised or automated replies, requiring instead specific reasons for any rejection.

  2. Immediately stop the unlawful conduct

    The Court was asked to declare Google’s systematic behaviour unlawful and to prohibit it with immediate effect.

  3. Take every measure to remove the effects of the violations

    Google was to be required to eliminate the consequences of its failures, including at an organisational and procedural level.

Digital freedom cannot be exercised at the expense of truth and human dignity.

The instrument[10]

What is a class action?

A class action is a legal instrument that allows several people to act together when they have suffered the same kind of harm from a private or public party. It is a form of collective justice that brings similar cases together in a single action, so that no victim has to bear alone the costs, time and complexity of an individual lawsuit.

Why

Under Italian law, the class action serves to restore the balance between the power of large economic players and citizens’ rights, guaranteeing effective protection even to those who would not have the strength to act alone.

It can take two forms

  • Compensatory

    When financial compensation is sought for the damage suffered.

  • Injunctive

    When the judge is asked to stop an unlawful or harmful conduct that keeps producing negative effects.

    → The case against Google

  • +350

    class actions brought in Italy since 2010

  • +40%

    increase in collective actions brought in the EU

  • +1,200

    class actions filed every year in the USA

Figures reported by the Google Class Action website.

When

In short, the class action is the collective voice of citizens when a private power becomes too big to be challenged by a single person.

It is an instrument of legal civilisation and democratic balance: a way of remembering that even in the digital world, no one is above the law.

Our stories[11]

Our stories

Voices of people living what the class action challenged. Names are omitted to protect them.

  1. For years I sent formal notices and documents proving those news stories were false. Google never answered. Meanwhile I lost clients, friends, trust. Every time someone searched my name, that lie came up.

    name withheld to protect the person

  2. A judicial error, later dismissed, became my digital business card. Nobody read the acquittal, but everyone saw the headline indexed by Google.

    name withheld to protect the person

  3. The results machine does not forget. I do, but the algorithm doesn’t. And my life has stood still at a link.

    name withheld to protect the person

We are collecting reports

Were you refused the deletion of your personal data?

Following the Court of Milan’s decision, by 15 November 2026 Google will have to let people attach documents to their delisting requests and give reasons for any refusal.

Tell us about your experience
The proceedings[12]

The proceedings, stage by stage

November 2025 – November 2026

From the launch to the decision, and on to Google’s deadline

The action was launched in November 2025. At the hearing of 11 December 2025 the panel set the procedural timetable. On 5 October 2026 the Court of Milan upheld the action; the deadline set for Google to change its procedures and forms is 15 November 2026.

The stages of the proceedings

  1. Nov2025

    Action launched

    Some members of Algopolio, together with other applicants, bring the collective injunction action against Google before the Court of Milan.

  2. 11Dec 2025

    Hearing

    The panel sets the procedural timetable (press release of 15 December 2025).

    Read the press release (Italian)

  3. 23Jan 2026

    Applicants’ observations

    Deadline set for the applicants to file brief written observations in reply to the defence briefs filed by Google when entering an appearance.

  4. 06Feb 2026

    Google’s observations

    Deadline set for Google to file its own brief written observations in response to the applicants’ reply.

  5. 05Oct 2026

    Action upheld

    The Court of Milan upholds the action and orders Google to change its procedures and forms (press release of 5 October 2026).

    Read the press release (Italian)

  6. 15Nov 2026

    Deadline for Google

    By this date Google will have to change its procedures and forms, with a substantial financial penalty for each day of delay.

    In 39 days

The dates from 11 December 2025 to 6 February 2026 were set by the panel at the hearing of 11 December 2025 (press release of 15 December 2025); the decision of 5 October 2026 and the 15 November 2026 deadline are reported in the press release of 5 October 2026.

Press release of 15 December 2025

This action is not only about the individual applicants: it touches the fundamental rights of every Italian and European citizen. For too long, the imbalance of power between global platforms and citizens has made it hard to obtain protection. This action aims to show that fundamental rights, including privacy and data protection, cannot be squeezed by automated systems or corporate choices. It is a step towards giving citizens back control over their own information and ensuring that technology is a tool at the service of people, not the other way round.

Prof. Vincenzo MorabitoPresident of AlgopolioTranslated from Italian.

Press coverage

The class action in the news

November 2025 – October 2026, most recent first. Articles are in Italian and open on the publishers’ websites; the press releases and the analysis are in the Observatory.

  1. 06Oct 2026

    Corriere della Sera · MilanoGoogle e il diritto all’oblio, il Tribunale di Milano accoglie l’azione inibitoria: «Un mese per cambiare la procedura di deindicizzazione»Open the article on milano.corriere.it (opens in a new tab)

  2. 05Oct 2026

    AlgopolioPress releaseThe decisionDiritto all’oblio, il Tribunale di Milano ordina a Google di modificare le procedure per la gestione delle richieste degli utentiRead in the Observatory (Italian)

  3. 16Dec 2025

    Il Sole 24 OreAnalysisLa causa pilota contro Google: «Diritto all’oblio calpestato»Read in the Observatory (Italian)

  4. 15Dec 2025

    AlgopolioPress releaseAzione inibitoria collettiva contro Google: il Tribunale di Milano fissa il calendario processualeRead in the Observatory (Italian)

  5. Nov2025

    Industria ItalianaGoogle, privacy e diritto all’oblio: l’azione inibitoria davanti al TribunaleOpen the article on industriaitaliana.it (opens in a new tab)

  6. 26Nov 2025

    La StampaImpossibile sparire da Google: a Milano la prima causa per violazione del diritto d’oblioOpen the article on lastampa.it (opens in a new tab)
  7. Punto InformaticoGoogle e il diritto all’oblio: parte una class action in ItaliaOpen the article on punto-informatico.it (opens in a new tab)
  8. SmartphonologyAvviata a Milano azione inibitoria contro Google: viola le norme sulla privacyOpen the article on smartphonology.it (opens in a new tab)
  9. Economy MagazineGoogle sotto accusa per presunte violazioni del diritto all’oblioOpen the article on economymagazine.it (opens in a new tab)

  10. 25Nov 2025

    la RepubblicaClass action contro Google: «Non rispetta il diritto all’oblio»Open the article on repubblica.it (opens in a new tab)
  11. Arena DigitaleAvviata Class Action Inibitoria contro GoogleOpen the article on arenadigitale.it (opens in a new tab)
  12. AlanewsMilano, un’associazione avvia una class action contro Google: ecco perchéOpen the article on alanews.it (opens in a new tab)

  13. 2025

    NewsPrimaAlgopolio lancia una class action contro Google per modificare le pratiche sul diritto all’oblioOpen the article on newsprima.it (opens in a new tab)
  14. Il Corriere della SicurezzaAvviata class action inibitoria contro GoogleOpen the article on ilcorrieredellasicurezza.it (opens in a new tab)
Go to the press room Press releases, full coverage, contacts and media kit
The official websiteclassactiongoogle.comThe Google Class Action website: background, updates and the collection of reports. (opens in a new tab)