Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
The repercussions of the judgment in Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González: C-131/12,  All ER (EC) 717 (analysis for Lexis®PSL IP&IT subscribers here) may prove to be only a taster of the privacy issues Google must wrestle with as it prepares for a further test case of enormous consequences. Monica Salgado, data protection specialist at Speechly Bircham considers the possible implications of the action brought by Daniel Hegglin, a former Morgan Stanley banker over ‘vile and abusive’ material about him that repeatedly appears in search results.
What are going to be the central issues when this case is heard?
The main issue at play will be the scope of the right to be forgotten principle in England and Wales. Google was originally asked to ensure a specific URL containing allegedly defamatory materials relating to Daniel Hegglin did not appear in Google search results.
Google has made some attempts to remove such search results in relation to Mr Hegglin’s right to be forgotten request, but now Mr Hegglin wants Google to strengthen its efforts and take all reasonable and proportional technical steps as might be necessary to make sure the allegedly defamatory webpages do not appear as snippets in Google’s search results. In most right to be forgotten requests, the individual has to indicate what the URL of the website(s) that contain the controversial personal data is—so it’s not such an ‘open’ request. I think that will be the main point in the trial in November—does Google have to take all those reasonable steps to avoid any such materials appearing in search results, or is it still just the case of the individual listing the URLs and requesting Google to remove those from its web search results.
What is the current position in relation to the obligation of internet service providers (ISPs) to take down unlawful or defamatory content?
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234