Right to be forgotten: a plain-language guide
The right to be forgotten in plain language: who you ask, what you can win in the EU, UK, US and Australia, and what always stays online.
The right to be forgotten is the right, in some countries, to ask a search engine to stop showing certain results for your name, or to ask an organization to delete personal data it holds about you. In Europe and the UK it is real and enforceable but limited: it works on name searches, it is balanced against the public's interest in information, and it does not delete the original page. Outside Europe it is much weaker or does not exist.
The phrase covers two different things that are often confused. Delisting is a request to a search engine to drop a result when someone searches your name. Erasure is a request to whoever holds your data, such as a publisher, a company or a data broker, to delete it. Which one you need, and whether the law gives you a route to it, depends on three questions this guide turns into a simple test: who holds the content, where you live, and what the content is.
This guide explains the idea without the jargon, shows what each country offers and what it does not, and sets out the factors that decide whether a request succeeds. It is information, not legal advice. A lawyer or your data protection authority can advise on a specific case.
- The right to be forgotten usually means delisting: a search engine stops showing a page for searches on your name, while the page stays online.
- Erasure at the source is a separate request to the publisher or data holder, and a publisher has stronger free-expression protections than a search engine.
- In the EU, EEA and UK the request is balanced against public interest, and a public role, recent news and accurate reporting weigh against you.
- The US has no single equivalent for search results, California has a deletion right against businesses, and Australia has no erasure right today.
- Use the three-question test before filing: who holds it, where you live, and what the content is.
Sources: Court of Justice of the EU, Google Spain v AEPD, C-131/12, 13 May 2014; GDPR Article 12; Google's EU privacy removal request page.
Where the right to be forgotten comes from
The idea became practical law in 2014. In Google Spain v AEPD and Costeja González (case C-131/12), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that a search engine is responsible for the personal data it shows in results for a name, and that it can be ordered to remove links even when the page behind them is lawful and stays online (Court of Justice of the EU, C-131/12). The Court reasoned that a name search builds a detailed profile of a person, and that links can become inadequate, irrelevant, no longer relevant or excessive over time.
Related readRemove Old Forum Post About Me: Who to Ask FirstThe statutory home of the idea is Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation, titled the right to erasure, and "right to be forgotten" is its popular name. Article 17 lists six situations in which you can ask for deletion without undue delay, including where the data is no longer necessary for its purpose, where you withdraw consent and there is no other legal ground, where you object and there are no overriding legitimate grounds, where the data was unlawfully processed, and where a child's data was collected for online services. It also lists exceptions, and the one that matters most here is freedom of expression and information.
Two things follow. The right is not a free-standing right to have the past removed; it is a set of grounds and exceptions weighed case by case. And it protects individuals. A company has no right to be forgotten for its own name, although the people named in its coverage can use the right for theirs. That is a reasoned reading of how the law is built, not a ruling, and a lawyer should confirm it for a specific case.
Two targets, two different requests
Most confusion about the right to be forgotten comes from treating the search engine and the publisher as one party. They are not, and the law treats them differently.
A search engine is asked to delist: to stop returning a page for a search on your name. The page stays on the publisher's site and can still be found through other search terms, through links and through other services. The 2014 judgment accepted that a person can have rights against the search operator that they would not have against the publisher, because search results can interfere with privacy more than the original page does and because publishers can rely on journalistic exemptions that search engines generally cannot.
Related readDMCA takedown notice: contents, steps, limitsA publisher or other data holder is asked to delete the page or the data. That request faces the exceptions in Article 17, including freedom of expression, and in the case of a news site it is usually the harder request. Many countries' data protection laws also carve out journalism, so a news archive may be outside the right entirely.
Google's own help page makes the same point: a delisting applies to name-related queries, the page stays online, and removing content at the source is often the more effective route (Google, request to remove content under EU privacy law). That is why a request to a search engine and a request to a publisher often run side by side.
The three-question test
Before you file anything, answer three questions. They place almost every case.
Who holds the content? If it is a search result, the route is delisting. If it is a news site, a blog or a forum, the route is a request to the publisher, and the first move is usually a polite request to update or remove. If it is a data broker or a company that holds your records, the route is an erasure or deletion request under whatever law applies to you.
Where do you live? Your location decides which law you can use. The EU and EEA have the GDPR. The UK has the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act. California has its own consumer privacy law. Australia has a correction right and no general erasure right today. Most other places have less. Where you live matters more than where the website is based, because most of these laws attach to the person making the request.
Related readRemove Arrest Record From Google: The Right OrderWhat is the content? Accuracy, age, your public role, how sensitive the information is and whether it is news all affect the outcome. The next sections explain how.
What each place offers
The table compares the main jurisdictions against the three kinds of target. Cells are deliberately short, and a lawyer should confirm anything that matters to you.
| Where you live | Search engine | Publisher or news site | Data broker or business |
|---|---|---|---|
| EU and EEA | Delisting on name searches, balanced against public interest | Erasure request, strong free-expression exceptions | Erasure under Article 17 |
| UK | Delisting on name searches, same balancing | Erasure request, journalism protections apply | Erasure under UK GDPR |
| US, California | No equivalent delisting right found | No right to force deletion of news | Deletion right against covered businesses and registered data brokers |
| US, elsewhere | No equivalent found | No right to force deletion | Depends on the state |
| Australia | No erasure right today | No erasure right today | Correction and access rights only |
The EU and EEA
Under the GDPR, delisting is a request to the search engine under Article 17 and the right to object in Article 21. The European Data Protection Board's guidelines on the criteria for search engine cases, final in July 2020, say delisting normally covers name-based results and leaves the content at the source and under other search terms. A refusal is lawful only where inclusion is strictly necessary for the public's freedom of information.
The search engine usually has one month to respond, extendable by two further months for complex or numerous requests, under Article 12 of the GDPR. If it refuses, you can complain to your national data protection authority or go to court.
The UK
The UK has retained the GDPR rules in its own law. The Information Commissioner's Office says the grounds and exceptions for erasure match the GDPR's, that organizations must respond within one month with a possible two-month extension, and that a refusal must give reasons and tell you about your right to complain to the ICO and to go to court. For search results specifically, the ICO says the search must be on your name and must significantly affect your privacy, that you should contact the search provider first, and that you can report a refusal to the ICO (ICO, internet search results). The ICO's pages note that the guidance is under review because of changes to UK data law, so check them before you rely on a detail.
Related readRemove Google autocomplete suggestions: what worksThe United States
The United States has no single law that gives people a right to have search results about them delisted, and we did not find a federal law that works like Article 17 for search engines. Free-speech protections shape the debate. What exists is a set of state laws. California's privacy law gives residents a right to ask covered businesses to delete personal information; businesses generally have 45 days to respond, with one 45-day extension, and the right has exceptions, including for publicly available information (California Attorney General, CCPA). California's Delete Act created a single request system for data brokers, which opened to residents in January 2026 and reaches registered brokers; it covers data brokers, not search engines or publishers. A California law also lets minors remove content they themselves posted on sites directed at them, though not content posted by others.
Australia
Australia has no statutory right to erasure today. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner describes a right to access personal information and to ask for it to be corrected where it is inaccurate, out of date, incomplete, irrelevant or misleading, with about 30 days considered reasonable for a response (OAIC, correct your personal information). The Attorney-General's Department opened consultation in August 2026 on an exposure draft bill that includes a proposed right to request destruction of personal information, limited to large digital platforms. The draft is not law and remains subject to further consideration. It has not been described as a search-engine delisting right, so do not assume it would work like one.
Related readRemove images from Google Image search: what worksHow the balancing works
Every European request is a balance between your privacy and the public's interest in information, and the court decisions explain what weighs on each side. Google's own form lists the factors it considers, and says no single factor decides the outcome: your role in public life, the source of the page, the age of the information, its accuracy, its relevance to people searching, any criminal conviction and local rules on expunging it, and its sensitivity, such as health, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity or religion.
| Factor | Helps your request | Weakens it |
|---|---|---|
| Public role | You are a private person | You hold or sought public office or a prominent role |
| Age | The information is old and no longer relevant | It is recent or tied to ongoing conduct |
| Accuracy | It is manifestly inaccurate and you can prove it | It is accurate, or the dispute is about opinion |
| Sensitivity | It concerns health, sexuality or similar | You made it public yourself |
| Source | A minor site with no public interest | A government or established news source |
| Crime | An old, minor or spent offence | A serious offence relevant to your work today |
Several court rulings sharpen these points. In 2019 the EU's top court held that search operators must in principle grant delisting of links to sensitive data, and may refuse only where the person made the data manifestly public or inclusion is strictly necessary for freedom of information. It also said that for criminal-offence data relating to an earlier stage of proceedings and no longer reflecting the current situation, the operator must delist where the person's rights outweigh public access. In 2022 it held that a person asking to delist content as inaccurate must show that it is manifestly inaccurate, with the evidence they can reasonably be expected to provide, and need not first win a court decision against the publisher, but that the search operator need not investigate the facts itself. The same ruling treated thumbnails in name searches as a particular intrusion that needs separate assessment.
The 2014 judgment states the starting point: privacy rights override the search engine's economic interest and, as a rule, the public's interest in finding the information, unless the person's role in public life or a preponderant public interest justifies the interference. Your public role is therefore the factor that most often defeats a request.
Related readRemove Bing Search Results: Every Microsoft RouteWhat you cannot get
The limits are as important as the rights, and misunderstanding them causes most disappointment.
The page stays online. Delisting changes search results, not the web. The result also remains for searches that do not use your name, and the content remains reachable through links and other services.
The scope is geographic. In 2019 the EU's top court held that EU law does not require delisting on all versions of a search engine worldwide, only measures that effectively prevent or at least seriously discourage EU users from reaching the links on a name search. A national authority may order wider delisting under its own law. In practice Google applies delisting on its search versions for countries under European data protection law and restricts access by location for users in the requester's country.
Public-interest content usually stays. Accurate recent news, professional wrongdoing and the conduct of people with a prominent public role are the typical refusals. That is not a failure of process; it is the balance the law is designed to strike.
Non-European law is thinner. Someone outside the EEA and UK, with no California or other state right to use, will usually have to rely on platform policies and the source's goodwill, which is specialist removal work.
Asking a search engine, step by step
A request is simple to make and takes care to do well. The steps below apply to a delisting request to a search engine in the EU, EEA or UK, and the same logic carries to other requests.
- Collect the exact addressesSearch your name, copy the address of each result you want gone, and save dated screenshots, because the form works on addresses and not on topics.
- Check the search is on your nameDelisting covers searches on your name, so confirm the result appears for it, and note the exact query you used.
- Choose your groundsDecide whether the page is inaccurate, out of date, irrelevant, excessive or about sensitive data, and gather evidence for each.
- Submit the formGoogle's form asks for the addresses, why each page relates to you and should be removed, the search query and a contact email.
- Ask the source in parallelContact the publisher or site owner to update or delete the page, since a successful delisting leaves it online.
- Escalate a refusalIf the request is refused, you can complain to your national data protection authority, or in the UK to the ICO, or ask a court.
Google says it triages requests with automated tools and human reviewers, and weighs public interest against your rights. Bing runs its own form for residents of the EU, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, the UK and the Isle of Man, and it asks for identity documents, a statement about any public role, exact page addresses, one topic per form and sworn statements. Bing says submitting a request does not mean a result will be blocked. Each engine decides separately, so a result delisted in one can remain in another.
Related readDelete Yourself From Google: What Is PossibleTiming is set by law and is often slower than people expect. The chart compares the main response periods in days, counting a month as 30 days for comparison.
Sources: GDPR Article 12 and ICO guidance on erasure; California Attorney General, CCPA page. Search engines are not covered by the California figures, which apply to businesses and brokers.
A realistic plan for a delisting request is therefore weeks, not days, with an appeal measured in months. The ICO's public guidance on search results sets no separate deadline for search providers, so assume the general one-month period.
When it is worth doing, and when it is not
A few rules of thumb help decide whether a request is worth filing. Filing makes sense when the page is old, inaccurate or about a matter that no longer reflects your life, when it is about a private person rather than someone in public life, when it concerns sensitive personal data, or when it is a minor offence long past. Filing rarely succeeds when the page is recent accurate news about conduct tied to a public role, or when the subject is the way you do your job today.
Remember the cost of a failed or aggressive request. A heavy-handed demand sent to a publisher over accurate coverage can start a second story, which is the Streisand effect. A calm request that explains what is inaccurate or outdated and offers evidence is almost always better. If a result cannot be removed, the other lever is outranking it with accurate material, which is a separate and lawful practice.
Where to start
Start with the three questions: who holds it, where you live and what it is. If the answer is a search result and you live in the EU, EEA or UK, a delisting request is the right tool. If the answer is an article, a calm request to the publisher comes first. If you live somewhere with no equivalent right, the route is the platform's own rules and, where the content is unlawful, a legal letter.
Related readCease and Desist for Online Defamation: When and HowIf a result about you is hurting a decision you are about to make, do not guess which route fits. Reputation Partners can test the three questions against your facts and tell you plainly whether a request is likely to succeed. Start on our removal page.
Questions people ask
Is the right to be forgotten absolute?
No. It is a right to ask, and the answer depends on balancing your privacy against the public's interest in information. Public role, recent accurate news and freedom of expression often outweigh a request. The right is strongest for private people, old or inaccurate information and sensitive personal data.
Does the right to be forgotten apply in the United States?
Not in the European sense. We did not find a general federal right to have search results delisted. Some states give residents deletion rights against businesses and data brokers, and California is the clearest example, but those do not generally reach news archives or search engines.
Can I use it to remove a news article?
You can ask, but it is hard. A publisher can rely on freedom of expression and, in many countries, journalism exemptions in data protection law. A search engine can delist the article for searches on your name, which is the more realistic request, though accurate recent news about a public role usually stays.
How long does a request take?
Under EU and UK law the organization must usually reply within one month, extendable by two further months for complex or numerous requests. In our experience, search engines often respond within weeks. Appeals to a regulator or court take longer, often months. Allow time, and keep your evidence ready in case you need to escalate.
Does Google have to follow the right to be forgotten everywhere?
No. EU law requires delisting for searches within the EU and measures that discourage EU users from reaching the links, but it does not require removal from every version of the search engine worldwide. A national court or authority can order wider delisting under its own law.
Can a company use the right to be forgotten?
Not for its own name. The right protects individuals, so a company cannot invoke it for corporate coverage. The directors, founders and staff named in that coverage can use it for their own personal data, subject to the same balancing. Brands usually need removal routes under platform rules or defamation law instead.
