Google asked to take down 2.4 MEEELLION URLs under EU law

But only delists about half

Google has received takedown requests for 2.4 million URLs since 2014 – but said yes to less than half.

As a result of a 2014 ruling from the European Court of Justice, EU citizens can ask Google to remove information about them from search results.

According to Google's transparency report, published today, since 28 May 2014 there have been 654,876 requests made, with 2,437,271 URLs singled out for delisting.

Google doesn't have to comply with the request, though. The biz appoints at least one reviewer to assess each case, who will weigh up whether the information is "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive".

chocolate factory

Europe's shock Google privacy ruling: The end of history? Don't be daft


The firm can refuse to take links down if there is a public interest in the information remaining in the search results, for instance business information might be useful for potential customers, while content about a violent crime could be of interest to the general public.

The report indicates that URLs are more likely to stay up than come down. Since May 2014, Google has not delisted 56.7 per cent of URLs. In the UK, some 60.2 per cent of URLs were not taken down.

The biz's decision-making in such a case is coming under the scrutiny of the High Court for the first time this week, in a case brought by a claimant who wants information about a 1990s conviction for conspiracy to falsely account stripped from the search engine's results.

In its transparency report, Google offered up some examples of cases when it has refused the request.

Among them is a Brit who asked Google to delist almost 300 articles related to a 2012 benefits fraud conviction. On the basis of a document that suggested he was later found innocent of the crime, Google delisted 239 URLs.

But then the same person asked the biz to delist a number of other pages related to a separate conviction for forging documents, and Google probed into the case a little deeper.

"After re-reviewing the original document he submitted as proof of his innocence in the benefits case, we discovered that it was a forgery," the biz said. "We reinstated all of the URLs we had previously delisted."

Since January 2016, Google has also kept track of the type of content that people want to remove from its search, with 18.1 per cent relating to professional information and 6.1 per cent to crime.

Paris Hilton in Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

Google: Grab our TOOL if you want your search query quashed


In a separate paper, Google said that there are two dominant reasons for a right to be forgotten delisting request.

"33 per cent of requested URLs related to social media and directory services that contained personal information, while 20 per cent of URLs related to news outlets and government websites that in a majority of cases covered a requester's legal history," it wrote.

And what information is requested for delisting changes depending on the country: Italians and Brits were three times more likely to go after news sources, while French and German citizens frequently want social media and directory pages.

France, Germany and the UK were also the most active, accounting for 51 per cent of URL delisting requests. A quarter of a percent of people requesting that information be taken down generated 15 per cent of all URL requests – unsurprisingly, many of these were law firms and reputation management services. However, some 87 per cent of requests do come from private individuals.

The site that has been most affected is a French directory of professionals, with 7,701 URLs delisted. Second to that is Facebook, with 6,846 URLs delisted, while Twitter is fourth, with 5,476 URLs delisted. ®

Similar topics

Broader topics

Other stories you might like

  • Big Tech loves talking up privacy – while trying to kill privacy legislation
    Study claims Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft work to derail data rules

    Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft often support privacy in public statements, but behind the scenes they've been working through some common organizations to weaken or kill privacy legislation in US states.

    That's according to a report this week from news non-profit The Markup, which said the corporations hire lobbyists from the same few groups and law firms to defang or drown state privacy bills.

    The report examined 31 states when state legislatures were considering privacy legislation and identified 445 lobbyists and lobbying firms working on behalf of Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft, along with industry groups like TechNet and the State Privacy and Security Coalition.

    Continue reading
  • Google has more reasons why it doesn't like antitrust law that affects Google
    It'll ruin Gmail, claims web ads giant

    Google has a fresh list of reasons why it opposes tech antitrust legislation making its way through Congress but, like others who've expressed discontent, the ad giant's complaints leave out mention of portions of the proposed law that address said gripes.

    The law bill in question is S.2992, the Senate version of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA), which is closer than ever to getting votes in the House and Senate, which could see it advanced to President Biden's desk.

    AICOA prohibits tech companies above a certain size from favoring their own products and services over their competitors. It applies to businesses considered "critical trading partners," meaning the company controls access to a platform through which business users reach their customers. Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta in one way or another seemingly fall under the scope of this US legislation. 

    Continue reading
  • Google's first report on Privacy Sandbox hits UK watchdog's inbox
    No 'reportable concerns' yet plenty of concerned feedback

    As Google's self-imposed "late 2023" deadline to kill all third party cookies in its Chrome browser looms, the giant has handed in its first quarterly Privacy Sandbox report to the UK's competition regulator.

    As a reminder, the Competition Market's Authority (CMA) took exception to Google's Privacy Sandbox cookie cull amid worries on several fronts that the project might shut out competing ad companies in favor of the search giant.

    Against a backdrop of added scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators in the US, Europe, and the UK at a time when Google faces broad antitrust scrutiny and litigation, the search giant made a number of commitments to the UK's CMA, one of which was a regular report on progress with its Privacy Sandbox proposals.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022