Implements the right to be forgotten in search engines under GDPR Article 17 and the CJEU Google Spain ruling (C-131/12). Covers delisting request procedures, criteria assessment balancing privacy against public interest, and geographic scope determination. Activate for right to be forgotten, search delisting, Google Spain, de-indexing queries.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
A direct command skips the review prompt. Inspect the source before running it.
Implements the right to be forgotten in search engines under GDPR Article 17 and the CJEU Google Spain ruling (C-131/12). Covers delisting request procedures, criteria assessment balancing privacy against public interest, and geographic scope determination. Activate for right to be forgotten, search delisting, Google Spain, de-indexing queries.
The right to be forgotten in the search engine context refers to the right of individuals to request that search engine operators delist (remove from search results) links to web pages containing personal data about them. This right was established by the CJEU in Google Spain SL v AEPD (Case C-131/12) and subsequently codified in GDPR Article 17. It requires a balancing exercise between the data subject's privacy rights and the public's right to access information. This skill provides the assessment criteria, request procedures, and operational workflows for both data controllers (whose content may be subject to delisting) and organizations assisting data subjects with delisting requests.
Legal Foundation
CJEU Case C-131/12 — Google Spain SL v AEPD (13 May 2014)
The Court of Justice of the European Union held that:
A search engine operator is a data controller in respect of the processing of personal data that appears on web pages published by third parties.
The operator of a search engine is obliged to remove from the list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of a person's name, links to web pages published by third parties and containing information relating to that person, if certain conditions are met.
The data subject's rights override, as a rule, the interest of internet users in having access to that information, unless particular reasons (such as the role played by the data subject in public life) justify the interference with the data subject's fundamental rights.
CJEU Case C-507/17 — Google LLC v CNIL (24 September 2019)
The Court clarified the territorial scope of de-indexing:
EU law does not require that de-indexing be carried out on all versions of the search engine globally.
The search engine operator must carry out de-indexing on the versions of its search engine corresponding to all EU Member States.
The search engine operator must take sufficiently effective measures to prevent or seriously discourage users in the EU from accessing the de-indexed links via non-EU versions of the search engine (geo-blocking).
GDPR Article 17 — Right to Erasure
Article 17(1) establishes six grounds for erasure. In the search engine context, the most commonly invoked grounds are:
Art. 17(1)(a): Data no longer necessary for the original purpose
Art. 17(1)(c): Data subject objects and no overriding legitimate grounds exist
Art. 17(3)(a): Freedom of expression and information
EDPB Guidelines 5/2019 on the Right to Be Forgotten in Search Engine Cases
Adopted 7 July 2020, these guidelines provide 13 criteria for assessing delisting requests.
Delisting Assessment Criteria
EDPB 13-Point Assessment Framework
The following criteria must be evaluated when assessing a delisting request. The assessment is a balancing exercise — no single criterion is determinative:
#
Criterion
Assessment Question
Weight Factors
1
Role in public life
Does the data subject play a role in public life?
Public figures (politicians, senior executives, public officials) have reduced expectation of delisting for information related to their public role
2
Nature of information
What type of personal data is involved?
Special category data (Art. 9) weighs heavily toward delisting; criminal conviction data requires careful balancing
3
Accuracy of information
Is the information accurate and up-to-date?
Inaccurate information strongly favours delisting
4
Relevance
Is the information still relevant to the public interest?
Information that was once relevant may become irrelevant over time
5
Age of information
How old is the information?
Older information generally weighs toward delisting, unless there is a continuing public interest
6
Source of information
Who published the original content?
Journalistic sources and official government publications weigh against delisting
7
Context of publication
Was the information published voluntarily by the data subject?
Self-published information may weigh against delisting
8
Sensitivity
How sensitive is the information?
Health data, sexual orientation, political opinions — higher sensitivity favours delisting
What is the context in which users access the information via search?
Name-based searches are more intrusive than topic-based searches
11
Minor
Is the data subject a minor (or was the data published when they were a minor)?
GDPR Recital 65: data subjects who were children at the time have a strengthened right to erasure
12
Criminal data
Does the information relate to criminal proceedings?
Spent convictions favour delisting; ongoing proceedings may not; national rehabilitation legislation applies
13
Legal obligation
Is there a legal obligation to index the information?
Court orders, regulatory requirements to maintain public registers
Assessment Decision Matrix
[Delisting Request Received]
│
▼
[Preliminary Assessment]
│
├── Is the data subject identifiable from the search results? ──► No ──► Reject (no personal data at issue)
│
├── Is the request against a search engine operator? ──► No ──► Redirect to content publisher (separate Art. 17 request)
│
└── Yes to both ──► [Full EDPB 13-Point Assessment]
│
▼
[Apply Balancing Test]
│
├── STRONG DELISTING CASE:
│ - Data subject is a private individual
│ - Information is inaccurate or outdated
│ - Information is sensitive (Art. 9 categories)
│ - Data subject was a minor when information published
│ - Significant demonstrable harm from continued indexing
│ - Information was not self-published
│ ──► APPROVE delisting
│
├── STRONG REFUSAL CASE:
│ - Data subject is a prominent public figure
│ - Information relates to their public role
│ - Information is accurate and current
│ - Strong public interest in access to the information
│ - Information published by journalistic source
│ - Legal obligation to maintain the information
│ ──► REFUSE delisting (cite specific public interest justification)
│
└── BORDERLINE CASE:
- Mixed factors present
──► [Detailed written balancing assessment required]
──► [Consider partial delisting or time-limited delisting]
──► [Consult DPO and Legal counsel]
Delisting Request Procedures
Step 1: Submitting Delisting Requests to Search Engines
Each major search engine maintains a dedicated form for delisting requests:
Google
Form: Google Search removal request under European privacy law
URL path: Available via Google's support documentation under "Remove personal information"
Required information: Full name, email address, country of residence, specific URLs to delist, explanation of why each URL should be delisted, identity verification
Response timeline: Google typically responds within 3-6 months; complex cases may take longer
Microsoft Bing
Form: Request to Block Bing Search Results in Europe
Required information: Full name, email address, country of residence, specific URLs, explanation, identity verification
Response timeline: Typically 3-6 months
Other Search Engines
DuckDuckGo: Does not maintain its own index of web pages; relies primarily on Bing results. A successful Bing delisting will typically cascade.
Yahoo: Uses Bing's index in most European markets. A successful Bing delisting will typically cascade.
Step 2: Delisting Request Template for Orion Data Vault Corp Employees/Customers
DELISTING REQUEST — SEARCH ENGINE
Organization Support Reference: DELIST-YYYY-NNNN
Data Subject: [Name]
Search Engine: [Google / Bing / Other]
Date of Request: [YYYY-MM-DD]
URLs REQUESTED FOR DELISTING:
1. [Full URL] — Reason: [Specific reason per EDPB criteria]
2. [Full URL] — Reason: [Specific reason per EDPB criteria]
GROUNDS FOR DELISTING (cite applicable Art. 17(1) ground):
□ Art. 17(1)(a) — Data no longer necessary for original purpose
□ Art. 17(1)(c) — Data subject objects; no overriding legitimate grounds
□ Art. 17(1)(d) — Unlawful processing
□ Other: [specify]
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
- Relationship to Orion Data Vault Corp: [employee/customer/former employee/other]
- Nature of information: [describe what the search results reveal]
- Impact of continued indexing: [describe harm]
- Age of information: [when was the content published?]
- Public role: [any public-facing role that may be relevant?]
- Previous attempts to resolve: [contact with content publisher?]
IDENTITY VERIFICATION:
- [Attach government-issued ID — to be submitted to search engine only]
- [Orion Data Vault Corp can verify employment/customer relationship if needed]
Step 3: Handling Search Engine Responses
Response
Action
Delisting approved
Verify URLs no longer appear in name-based searches from EU locations; log outcome; notify data subject
Delisting refused
Review reasoning; assess whether to escalate; advise data subject of right to complain to DPA
Partial delisting
Review which URLs were accepted/refused; assess remaining URLs; advise data subject
Request for more information
Provide requested information within 14 days
No response (6+ months)
Escalate: lodge complaint with relevant DPA
Step 4: DPA Complaint Escalation
If a search engine refuses a delisting request, the data subject may complain to the supervisory authority:
Identify the lead DPA: For Google, the lead authority is the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC). For Bing, it is the Irish DPC (Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd).
Prepare complaint: Include the original request, the search engine's refusal with reasoning, the data subject's counter-arguments per the EDPB 13-point criteria.
Submit complaint: Via the DPA's online complaint form.
Timeline: DPA investigations typically take 6-18 months.
Geographic Scope of Delisting
EU/EEA Scope (Minimum)
Following C-507/17 (Google v CNIL), delisting must be implemented on:
All EU/EEA country-specific versions of the search engine (e.g., google.de, google.fr, google.nl, etc.)
The global version (e.g., google.com) when accessed from within the EU/EEA (geo-blocking)
Geo-Blocking Requirements
The search engine must implement measures to prevent EU/EEA users from circumventing delisting:
IP-based geo-blocking on non-EU versions
GPS-based location verification on mobile devices
The measures must be "sufficiently effective" but absolute prevention is not required
Global Delisting (Exceptional Cases)
In exceptional circumstances, a DPA or national court may order global delisting. This remains controversial and is assessed case-by-case. Factors favouring global scope include:
Safety of the data subject (e.g., stalking, domestic violence)
Information about a minor
Manifestly inaccurate or defamatory content
Interaction with Content Source
Delisting from search results does NOT remove the original content from the source website. For complete erasure:
Contact the content publisher directly: Submit an Art. 17 erasure request to the website hosting the content.
National defamation/privacy law: If the content is defamatory or violates privacy law, pursue removal under applicable national law.
Court order: In severe cases, obtain a court order requiring the publisher to remove the content.
Cache clearing: After source content is removed, request that search engines clear their cached copies.
