The French data protection authority said it has fined Google $111,720 for not scrubbing web search results widely enough in response to a European privacy ruling.
The only way for Google to uphold the privacy ruling was by delisting results popping up under name searches and linking them instead to outdated information across all its websites, the Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertes (CNIL) said in a statement on Thursday.
The U.S. Internet giant has been at loggerheads with several European Union data protection authorities since the European Court of Justice ruled in May 2014 that people could ask search engines, such as Google and Microsoft’s Bing, to remove inadequate or irrelevant information – dubbed the “right to be forgotten”.
Google complied, but it only scrubbed results across its European websites such as Google.de in Germany and Google.fr in France on the grounds that to do otherwise would have a chilling effect on the free flow of information.
“Contrary to Google‘s statements, applying delisting to all of the extensions does not curtail freedom of expression insofar as it does not entail any deletion of content from the Internet,” the CNIL said.
A spokesman for Google, now a unit of holding company Alphabet Inc, said the company had worked hard to implement the “right to be forgotten ruling thoughtfully and comprehensively in Europe.”
“But as a matter of principle, we disagree with the CNIL’s assertion that it has the authority to control the content that people can access outside France, and we plan to appeal their ruling,” Al Verney, Google‘s spokesman, said.
The company did try to assuage the regulator’s concerns in February by delisting search results across all its websites – including Google.com – when accessed from the country where the request came from.
Full Content: Fortune
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Veteran Lawyers Launch Boutique Antitrust Firm in NY and DC
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
EU’s Top Court Upholds Antitrust Veto on Thyssenkrupp-Tata Steel Deal
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Brazil’s Court Delays X’s Return Over Fine Payment Dispute
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Tencent and Guillemot Family Consider Potential Buyout of Ubisoft
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Second Price-Fixing Case Against Hotel-Casinos Dismissed by Federal Judge
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh