Google and the Right to Be Forgotten
According to the highest court of the bloc ruling, the ‘right to be forgotten online’ does not apply beyond the European Union borders. During the protected 2014 decision, it was a legal right requirement for search engines to do away with any individual information dimmed unfit by the person concerned. However, according to the landmark ruling, there is no obligation for the elimination of personal data if the SEOs do not reside within the EU borders or the 28 zones of the European country (Iglezakis, 2014). This paper provides a strategic analysis of one of the Google and the ‘right to be forgotten’ cases by use of an executive summary template.
Case synopsis
This strategic analysis focuses on a Spanish practicing lawyer who created a search engine on Google. However, he was frustrated by the results that he got since they were a threat to his career and law business in general (Cofone, 2015). The Spanish lawyer was Mr. Gonzales, while the search engine was Google Corporation. Mr. Gonzales’ article appeared online in a particular business newspaper. Therefore, when Mr. Gonzales saw that, he called the host for the publication and requested him to delete the article. Furthermore, according to the Spanish Act of Data protection, Mr. Gonzales had a right not to disclose his personal information to the public or Google readers. However, this was not the case with the information acts in the United States; thus, the newspaper host did not grant Mr. Gonzales his request since, according to the US stipulations acquisition and publication of Mr. Gonzales’s information was legal and legitimate (Iglezakis, 2014).
Relevant Factual Information about Mr. Gonzales’ Issue and the Decision rendered to the Business newspaper organization
Different countries or statutes have different laws that govern online information and privacy. Laws applicable in Spain or Europe cannot be applicable in America and vice versa. Therefore, Mr. Gonzales from Spain, trying to challenge the ‘right to be forgotten law’ in the United States by using Spanish stipulations would not work (Cofone, 2015). Regardless of Mr. Gonzales understanding this requirement, he proceeded with suing Google Corporation through his Spanish Agency (SDPA). His concern was his personal information; therefore, he wanted the newspaper hosts to delete some pages from the article, which bore his information. Likewise, he wanted the La Vanguardia newspaper to take responsibility for the protection of private information (Iglezakis, 2014). He also wanted his SDPA agency to authorize Google Corporation to restrict any supply of information related to him so that in case someone searched for his data or related issues, it will not be available.
However, La Vanguardia was no legible for any summon since the information contained in the article was legally and legitimately acquired under the United States’ stipulations. Thus, it was asked to delete the private information belonging to the defendant and also restrict access to any other information about Mr. Gonzales. In 2014, Google Corporation appealed against this case, and thus, it was sent to the European court of justice where it was ruled in favor of Mr. Gonzales. Google SEO removed the information and rendered the link to this information unavailable.
Explanation of concepts, theories, and applications from course materials
The European court of justice ruling was valid according to the law of the ‘right to be forgotten.’ Mr. Gonzales had a right to ask the SEO to pull down his personal information since it was a threat to his career and business. Furthermore, freedom of expression does not undermine humanity; however, Google’s denial to grant Mr. Gonzales’ wish was threatening and hence, was