- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case 16 U 10/22 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2023)
Privacy enforcement record
This record is classified outside cookie consent. Subject classification does not confirm an applicable law. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
A court in Germany ruled that Google did not have to remove links to a hotel entrepreneur's past insolvency from its search results. The court decided that the public's right to information outweighed the entrepreneur's right to have the information erased. This case highlights the challenges individuals face when trying to manage their online reputations.
What happened
The court ruled that Google could keep links to insolvency information about an entrepreneur in its search results.
Who was affected
The entrepreneur who managed a worldwide chain of hotels and had gone through insolvency proceedings.
What the authority found
The court found that Google's freedom of information was more important than the entrepreneur's right to erasure under GDPR.
Why this matters
This ruling emphasizes the difficulty of removing negative information from search engines. It serves as a reminder for individuals and businesses to be aware of how their online presence can be affected by past events.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Linked-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 18 March 2026.
No issues were reported by that automated check.
Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources
The data subject was an entrepreneur managing a worldwide chain of hotels. Since 2012, the data subject went through a series of insolvency proceedings. After that, when their first name and surname were entered in a Google search, the autofill system completed the search key with the word “bankrupt”. The same word was used in some of the webpages whose URLs Google indexed under the data subject’s name. The data subject requested Google to delist some URLs linking them with the insolvency, arguing that the content of such pages did not match reality. Google refused to delist the URLs by arguing that there was a public interest in keeping that information available. Therefore, the data subject brought action against Google for violation of their right to erasure under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR. Alongside with delisting, the data subject asked for the deletion of the word “bankrupt” in Google’s autofill function. The court of first instance partially upheld the data subject’s claim and ordered Google to amend its autofill function. On the other hand, the court rejected all the other claims concerning URLs delisting. Both the data subject and the controller appealed the decision. The Supreme Regional Court of Frankfurt (Oberlandgericht Frankfurt am Main) rejected the data subject’s appeal. According to the court, the legal requirements set forth in Article 17 GDPR were not met, as the controller’s freedom of information prevailed on the data subject’s right to erasure. Facts described in the URLs listed by Google, despite not accurate from a strictly legal perspective, had do be understood as expression of a subjective opinion. According to the judges, the use of the word “bankrupt” does not trigger nuanced legal considerations in the mind of the average internet user. On the contrary, it expresses both a general situation in which a certain person cannot pay their debts – which was true in the present case – and a (negative) judgement that cannot be proved or disproved
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 16 U 10/22 in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Ruling Date
20 April 2023
Authority
DPA OLGFrankfurt
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 16 U 10/22 - Germany (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: