Privacy commissioner takes Google to court over 'right to be forgotten' case

Canada's privacy commissioner has escalated a seven-year legal battle with Google by asking the Federal Court to compel the search giant to remove specific results about an individual whose criminal charges were dismissed. This landmark case represents Canada's most significant judicial test of whether international 'right to be forgotten' principles should apply under domestic law, pitting privacy rights against free expression in the digital age.

The protracted legal dispute

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada confirmed it filed a Federal Court application after Google refused to implement its 2023 recommendation to delist articles about a dismissed criminal case from search results tied to an individual's name. The privacy watchdog first became involved in 2017 when the complainant raised concerns about how search results continued to surface outdated information about dropped charges, causing ongoing personal and professional harm.

While the original news articles would remain online and accessible through other search terms, the commissioner determined that prominently displaying these links in response to searches of the individual's name violated provisions of Canada's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). The law requires organizations to limit the collection, use and disclosure of personal information to what a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances.

Google's constitutional arguments

Google has consistently resisted the delisting request, framing the case as a fundamental free expression issue. A company spokesperson told Global News the matter raises important Charter questions about whether search engines can be compelled to alter results based on individual complaints rather than legal determinations about accuracy. The tech giant maintains that requiring content removal from search indexes effectively suppresses lawfully published information that remains available on source websites.

The company's position reflects broader concerns in the technology sector about setting precedents that could lead to fragmented internet experiences, where search results vary by jurisdiction based on individual takedown requests. Google argues its search function should neutrally reflect what exists on the open web, leaving content moderation decisions to original publishers except where prohibited by law.

The global context of digital forgetting

This case marks Canada's most direct engagement with the contested 'right to be forgotten' concept, which gained legal force in Europe following a landmark 2014 European Court of Justice ruling against Google. The decision required search engines to honor individual requests to delist outdated or irrelevant personal information under EU data protection law, though with exceptions for public figures and matters of public interest.

Privacy advocates argue such mechanisms help prevent disproportionate harm from old information that remains perpetually accessible online, noting that digital persistence creates unique reputational challenges absent from pre-internet eras. Media organizations and free speech proponents counter that altering search results effectively rewrites collective memory and could enable reputation laundering by powerful individuals seeking to erase unflattering but accurate records.

Legal framework in Canada

The Federal Court will need to determine whether PIPEDA's existing provisions can support a right to delisting similar to the EU model, or whether such a policy would require legislative amendment. Unlike the EU's comprehensive data protection regime, Canada's privacy law for private sector organizations establishes more general principles about appropriate information handling practices.

Key legal questions include whether search results constitute a 'use' of personal information under PIPEDA, whether Google qualifies as an organization collecting or using personal information through its search function, and how to properly balance privacy protections against the Charter's guarantee of freedom of expression. Previous Canadian cases have touched on related issues involving search engines and defamation law, but none have directly addressed delisting obligations under privacy statutes.

Potential consequences of the ruling

A decision favoring the privacy commissioner could establish Canada's first judicial recognition of delisting rights, potentially prompting numerous similar requests from individuals seeking to minimize visibility of outdated or damaging information. However, legal scholars note the Canadian Charter's robust protection for free expression creates a different constitutional landscape than the EU framework, likely requiring stricter limits on any removal mechanisms.

If the court sides with Google, it would maintain the current status quo where outdated but factually accurate information remains easily discoverable unless individuals successfully petition publishers for content updates or removal. Such an outcome might increase pressure on legislators to consider statutory reforms explicitly addressing digital forgetting, as some other jurisdictions have done through right-to-be-forgotten or expungement laws.

Broader implications for digital society

This case represents a critical inflection point for how Canadian law reconciles competing values in the internet era. The Federal Court's decision will help define the boundaries between individual privacy and public access to information in a world where digital platforms mediate so much of social and economic life.

The ruling will have ripple effects beyond the immediate parties, influencing how media organizations approach digital archiving, how technology companies design their Canadian services, and how ordinary citizens handle the internet's permanent memory. It may also shape whether and how Canadian lawmakers choose to modernize privacy legislation to address the unique challenges of algorithmic amplification and digital persistence that have emerged since PIPEDA's enactment in 2000.

The path forward

As the case proceeds through Federal Court, both sides will have opportunity to fully articulate their positions on where the proper balance lies between privacy and free expression in search results. The court's eventual decision will provide much-needed clarity on whether Canada's existing legal framework can accommodate right-to-be-forgotten principles, or whether legislative action would be required to establish such protections.

The outcome may also influence ongoing policy discussions about internet governance and platform accountability, as governments worldwide grapple with questions about who should bear responsibility for managing the societal impacts of globally accessible digital information. For Canadians directly affected by outdated but damaging search results, the court's ruling could determine whether they must live with digital shadows of past events indefinitely, or gain some measure of control over their online identities.