Editorial

This issue of Information Technology Law Reports consists of one High Court case:  (1) NT1 (2) NT2 v Google LLC and The Information Commissioner. This case concerns the right to be forgotten and how de-listing requests should be dealt with. It is clear that the element of dishonesty, the risk of reoffending, and conduct since the conviction played a key role in the outcome. The right to be forgotten is not a right  to change the past. The content complained of in these cases will not be removed from the underlying online sources, only the links will, in the case of NT2, not be revealed, following a search on Google. The refusal to award compensation was an indication that the court will look upon search providers favourably where they have taken reasonable care and complied with data protection laws. Organisations will need to take particular care, now that GDPR is in force, when dealing with data subject rights.

Richard Budworth
Editor, Information Technology Law Reports

(1) NTI  and(2) NT2 v Google LLC and The Information Commissioner 
High Court of Justice 
Queen’s Bench Division 
Warby J
13 April 2018
[2018] EWHC 799 (QB) 

Private Information – Google search engine – de-listing – ‘right to be forgotten’ – misuse of private information – spent convictions – Google Spain SL & Another v Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos (AEPD) – Article 29 Working Party Guidelines – Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 – Data Protection Act 1998 – NT1’s claim dismissed – NT2’s claim upheld.