Could the European Court of Justice’s May 13, 2014 Google Spain decision delay the adoption of the EU Data Protection Regulation?
Approximately “91,000 requests” to be forgotten have been submitted to Google since the May 2014 EU European Court of Justice ruling which has led to “a total of 328,000 links that applicants wanted taken down” according to a BBC news report. The report went to say that Google’s ‘right to be forgotten’ statistics so far are:
U.S. District Court Judge Ronald M. Whyte has issued an order granting in part and denying in part Google’s Motion to Dismiss the class action filed against the Company on March 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as a result of unauthorized children’s in-app purchases in the Google Play Store.
As part of an “investigation of possible conspiracy to commit money laundering” a Judge stated that he perceives “no constitutionally significant difference between the searches of hard drives… and searches of email accounts.”
The US Supreme has refused to consider Google’s claim that when Street View collected unencrypted Wifi data between 2007 and 2010 that it was “readily accessible to the general public” so the collection was not a violation of the Wiretap Act” which claim was rejected in December 2013 by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Last month, in a bombshell decision, the European Union’s Court of Justice (“CJEU”) demanded that Google “forget” certain items.
Following the recent Court of Justice decision in the Costeja case, Google launched a service last Friday that will allow European data subjects to request the removal of search results for queries that include their name where those results are “inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purpose for which they were processed“.
There’s been some movement on the white space database administrator front – but it’s hard to call it progress. Readers will recall that Google got its database system approved nearly a year ago.
The CJEU’s judgment against Google has been hailed as a “Landmark Ruling“. I agree that this judgment is a landmark ruling – however, not for the reason everyone else is making it out to be.