Right to delisting

What it is

Delisting is the right to obtain from search engines (Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo) the removal of links that, when associated with your name, lead to pages with information that is inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes for which it was processed, also in light of the time that has passed.

How it differs from the right to be forgotten

• Right to be forgotten: the content is erased from the original website.
• Delisting: the link is removed from search results. The content stays online, but it is no longer indexed.

The Google Spain case (2014): how the right was born

The story. Mario Costeja González, a Spanish citizen, searched for his own name on Google. The results included links to old newspaper articles from 1998 about the forced sale of his property for debts. The debts had been paid off years earlier, but the articles were still indexed.

The question. Can a search engine be obliged to remove links even if the original content is lawful?

The CJEU’s answer: yes. Google is a “data controller” for its indexing activity and must assess delisting requests by balancing:

• the data subject’s right to privacy and to be forgotten;
• the public’s right to information;
• freedom of information and expression (Art. 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights).

The key principle: privacy rights override the search engine’s economic interest and, as a rule, the public’s interest in the information, unless the person plays a role in public life or the content has a particular historical or social interest.

The Class Action against Google (2026)

The Court of Milan has upheld the collective injunction action brought by some members of Algopolio, together with other applicants, against Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited and Google Italy S.r.l. (press release of 5 October 2026, in Italian). The decision concerns how Google handles requests to exercise the right to be forgotten under Arts. 17 and 21 GDPR, and recognises that its current procedures in practice prevent people from exercising it.

The Court ordered Google to:

• change its procedures and forms so that users can attach documentation supporting their delisting request;
• give reasons for any refusal, based on an assessment of the documents submitted, so that the person can understand them immediately and effectively.

The procedures and forms must be changed by 15 November 2026, with a substantial financial penalty for each day of delay.

The 4 assessment criteria

The search engine must assess each request against 4 criteria (WP29 guidelines).

1. The person’s role in public life

• Ordinary person: the right to delisting is stronger.
• Public figure (politician, celebrity): the public interest is greater, delisting is harder.
• Accidental public figure (for example a witness to a news event): an intermediate assessment, depending on how central their role was.

Examples

• A mayor: delisting is difficult for facts linked to their public role.
• A witness in a Mafia trial: delisting becomes possible after many years, if their life has become private again.

2. The nature of the information and the public interest

• Information of significant public interest: delisting is difficult (for example convictions for corruption or serious fraud).
• Minor news: delisting is easier (for example a small road accident).
• Private information: delisting is very likely (for example health, sexual orientation, family life).

Examples

• An article about an MP convicted of embezzlement: permanent public interest → no delisting.
• An article about a student arrested for marijuana possession 15 years ago: no current public interest → yes to delisting.

3. Time elapsed

• The more time passes, the stronger the right to be forgotten and to delisting becomes.
• There is no fixed deadline: each case is assessed individually.
• Very old information (more than 10 years) about minor facts: delisting is highly likely.

Example: an arrest for a brawl in 2005, with the case dismissed → in 2025, twenty years later, delisting is very likely.

4. Potential harm to the person

• Serious reputational or professional harm favours delisting.
• Sensitive information (health, sexuality) enjoys strong protection.
• The impact on daily life (work, relationships) is taken into account.

Example: a doctor, acquitted in an old medical malpractice case, cannot attract new patients because the articles are still indexed → significant harm → delisting is favoured.

Google’s procedure

On the way Google handles delisting requests, some members of Algopolio, together with other applicants, brought a collective injunction action, upheld by the Court of Milan: all the details are on the Class Action against Google page.