In the digital age of today, where the generation of information seems to have no limits, the right to be forgotten is a very powerful weapon of defence. This right allows citizens to demand the removal of content from the Internet under certain conditions, for example, when a website offers false, erroneous or obsolete information about a person. It is a way of protecting the honour and dignity of citizens on the Internet.
Now, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has gone a step further, establishing that search engines are obliged to remove results if they contain information that is “manifestly inaccurate.” In this way, any user can ask Google to remove results with false data, provided that it can be proven that they are truly false.
The CJEU's decision follows a case in which two users asked Google to remove slovenia number data from its search results some websites that contained false information. The affected users explained that the "articles criticised their investment model using inaccurate statements." They also asked for their photographs to be removed from image search results.
Google refused to delete the entries , arguing that it could not know whether the information was actually false, so those affected turned to the courts. First, they took the case to the German Court of Justice, which in turn asked the CJEU for support, and the latter has now ruled that search engines are obliged to remove content when part of it turns out to be inaccurate, taking the legislation on the right to be forgotten a step further.
In this way, to request the removal of this information, users only have to prove the inaccuracy that has been dumped on them on the Internet with the relevant evidence. However, in the event that the inaccuracy of the information cannot be proven, Google may ignore the request (and those affected would have to resort, as in this case, to legal action).
Despite the complexity of the issue, with this decision the Court of Justice of the EU makes it clear that the rights to the protection of private life and personal data prevail over any