Google – Complaint Upheld (Italy, 2025)
Google received a request to remove links to news articles about a past criminal case involving a person. The company refused, saying the articles were still relevant. This decision highlights the ongoing debate over the right to be forgotten and how companies handle sensitive information.
What happened
A person asked Google to remove URLs linking to press reports about their past criminal case under the right to be forgotten.
Who was affected
The request came from a person whose name was linked to articles about a criminal case involving extortion and bankruptcy.
What the authority found
The Italian data protection authority found that Google had already removed some links but ruled that the remaining articles could stay online due to their public relevance.
Why this matters
This case emphasizes the challenges individuals face when trying to erase their digital past. Companies should carefully consider how they handle requests for content removal to avoid potential disputes.
GDPR Articles Cited
View original scraped data
Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.
On 21 March 2024, the data subject submitted a request to Google LLC invoking the right to be forgotten under Article 17 GDPR, seeking removal of eight URLs linking his name to press reports about a 2015–2020 criminal case involving extortion and fraudulent bankruptcy. The criminal proceedings against the data subject had concluded in 2020 with a two-year sentence following a plea bargain. The data subject argued that continued indexing of those articles, five years after the judgment, violated his right to erasure under Article 17 GDPR as they no longer served any public or social interest. Google rejected the request, maintaining that the material remained of public relevance given the seriousness of the offences, their organised-crime context, and the complainant’s ongoing professional activity in similar sectors. On 24 May 2024, the data subject filed a formal complaint with the DPA under Article 77 GDPR. The complainant argued that his role in the criminal case had been marginal, and that persistent indexing of his name caused reputational harm. The DPA examined the complaint under Articles 17(1)(c) and 21(1) GDPR, applying the balancing criteria established in the WP29 Guidelines (2014) and EDPB Guidelines 5/2019. It as noted that Google had already de-indexed four URLs mentioned in the complaint and therefore found no basis for further action regarding them. As to the remaining links, the DPA held that two of the URLs concerned recent, accurate reports about a criminal case of ongoing public importance tied to organised-crime infiltration in the Veneto region and that the data subject was an emblematic participant in that context. The data subject's continuing professional activity in related sectors further supported the public interest factor. Accordingly, the request to delist these URLs was rejected. Two other URLs were found to lack sufficient public-interest justification. One referred only to early-stage investigations, while the other reproduced a
Outcome
Complaint Upheld
A data subject complaint that was upheld by the DPA.
Related Enforcement Actions (1)
Other enforcement actions involving Google in IT
Details
Decision Date
29 April 2025
Authority
Garante per la protezione dei dati personali
GDPRhub ID
gdprhub-9589About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Google - Italy (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: