1. Meaning of Search Engine Delisting

Search engine delisting (also called de-indexing or right to be forgotten) means:

• Removing specific URLs from search engine results
• Based on a legal or equitable request
• Usually involving personal data or harmful content

It is governed by principles such as:

• Data protection rights
• Privacy vs freedom of expression
• Public interest test
• Proportionality

2. Core Legal Standards for Delisting

(A) Balancing Test

Courts balance:

• Individual’s right to privacy
• Public’s right to information

(B) Relevance Test

Whether the information is:

• Still relevant
• Outdated or obsolete

(C) Public Interest Test

Delisting is refused if:

• Content involves public figures
• Crime, politics, public safety issues
• Journalistic/public record value

(D) Data Minimization Principle

Only necessary data should remain accessible.

(E) Territorial Scope

Whether delisting applies:

• Only in one country
• Across the EU
• Globally (controversial)

(F) Procedural Requirements

• Clear identification of URLs
• Specific request (not vague)
• Proof of harm or rights violation

3. Important Case Laws on Search Engine Delisting

1. Google Spain v. AEPD and Mario Costeja González (CJEU, 2014)

This is the foundational “right to be forgotten” case.

Held:

• Search engines are “data controllers”
• Individuals can request removal of outdated or irrelevant links
• Even lawful content may be delisted if no longer relevant

Principle:

Established the Right to Be Forgotten under EU law

2. Google Inc. v. CNIL (CJEU, 2019)

This case decided the geographical scope of delisting

Held:

• No automatic obligation for global delisting
• Search engines must remove results within the EU
• Global removal may be required only in exceptional cases

Principle:

Introduced territorial limitation of delisting rights

3. NT1 & NT2 v. Google LLC (England and Wales High Court, 2018)

Facts:

Two businessmen sought removal of past criminal-related search results.

Held:

• NT2 succeeded (older, rehabilitated offence)
• NT1 failed (public interest remained)

Principle:

Introduced context-based balancing test for criminal history:

• Rehabilitation vs public interest

4. Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Google Inc. (Supreme Court of Canada, 2017)

Held:

• Court ordered global delisting
• Google had to remove infringing results worldwide
• Needed to protect intellectual property rights

Principle:

One of the strongest precedents for global injunction-based delisting

5. Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD Decision & Spanish Courts, 2015–2017 line of cases)

Held:

• Individuals can demand removal of personal data from search results
• Even legally published data can be delisted if excessive or irrelevant

Principle:

Strengthened individual privacy rights over time-sensitive data

6. GC & Others v. CNIL (CJEU, 2019 – “Sensitive Data Case”)

Facts:

Concerned delisting of sensitive personal data (religion, politics, health).

Held:

• Higher protection applies to sensitive data
• Search engines must generally delist such data unless strong public interest exists

Principle:

Established enhanced protection for sensitive personal data

7. (Additional Supporting Case) B.R. v. Google Italy (Italian Supreme Court, 2016–2020 line)

Held:

• Delisting requests must be specific and precise
• Overbroad requests can be rejected

Principle:

Introduced precision requirement in delisting requests

4. Key Principles Derived from Case Law

From all major cases, search engine delisting standards include:

1. Not Absolute Right

Delisting is conditional, not automatic.

2. Balancing Required

Privacy is always balanced against:

• Freedom of expression
• Public interest

3. Relevance Decay Principle

Old or irrelevant data is more likely to be delisted.

4. Stronger Protection for Sensitive Data

Health, religion, sexuality, political views get higher protection.

5. Geographic Limitation

Most jurisdictions reject automatic global delisting.

6. Specificity Requirement

Requests must clearly identify URLs.

5. Conclusion

Search engine delisting is governed by a balancing framework rather than absolute rights. Courts across Europe, Canada, and other jurisdictions consistently hold that:

• Privacy rights support delisting in many cases
• But public interest and freedom of expression often override it
• The outcome depends heavily on context, time, and relevance