![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> ABC v Google Inc [2018] EWHC 137 (QB) (01 February 2018) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2018/137.html Cite as: [2018] EWHC 137 (QB) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
![]() |
B e f o r e :
____________________
![]() | Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() | Defendant |
____________________
The Defendant did not appear and was not represented
Hearing dates: 22 January 2018
____________________
VERSION
OF JUDGMENT APPROVED
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Julian Knowles:
"3. Both claims concern what is called "the right to be forgotten". As is well-known, searches of the Internet can be made by search engines.provides such a search engine. When a person's name is entered, the search will return potentially relevant information relating to that person. Links are provided to the location of the information. The searcher can,
via
those links,
visit
the pages that have been identified as potentially containing information about or reference to the person whose name was searched.
4. The return of information in response to an inquiry of a search engine, potentially engages data protection laws. In these cases,accepts that when it provides results to a search against a person's name, it is a "data controller" and therefore subject to the relevant data protection laws. In the European Union, data protection laws are harmonised. The principle is that every EU state will must have substantially the same laws that apply to data protection. In the England & Wales, currently the principal source of data protection law is the Data Protection Act 1998. A new Regulation, the General Data Protection Regulation, will come into force across the EU (
including
the UK) on 25 May
2018.
5.As a result of the harmonisation of data protection laws across the EU, the European Court of Justice has jurisdiction to determine issues arising from data protection cases. Courts of the member states of the EU can refer cases to the ECJ for rulings as to the interpretation of the law. One such case –Spain SL –
v-
Agencia Espanol de Proteccion de Datos (AEPD) (Case C-131/12, 13 May 2014) [2014]
QB
1022 - has become fairly well-known and has been the subject of public debate. It is colloquially known as the
Spain case. It is the case that first really brought to prominence the notion of a "right to be forgotten". Put
very
simply, the case decided that, after a period of time, certain information about a person (although it may have been accurate many years ago, and may remain so) should not continue to be made available to the public in Internet search results because to do so would infringe the data protection rights of the individual concerned."
"4.![]()
Inc
provides a range of Internet services
including
![]()
via
Blogger.com (also based in and managed from the USA). This is described as a "platform" which allows any Internet user, in any part of the world, to create an independent blog free of charge. If someone uses that service, without having his/her own web address ("URL"), then Blogger.com allows users to host their blogs on Blogger.com URLs. This was the case with the blog on which the comments complained of in these proceedings were posted.
UK Ltd simply carries on a sales support and marketing business within this jurisdiction. It does not operate or control Blogger.com and has therefore been joined in these proceedings inappropriately. This was explained in a defence served on 8 December 2011. The English company takes no part in the applications before me."
"71. The application was supported by the first witness statement of David Christopher Barker ofUK's solicitors, Pinsent Masons. He stated that "Blogger is operated and controlled by
![]()
Inc.,
a company
incorporated
in Delaware in the United States, with its principal place of business in Mountain
View,
California", and that this was explained in the
Terms of Service, to the detail of which he referred. He described the services provided by
UK and went on
'UK does not provide any online services. It does not own Blogger and does not control the way in which Blogger works …
UK does not specify or control how data is processed on Blogger or what material is made available.'"
"The Services are provided byLLC ("
Google"),
located at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain
View,
CA 94043, United States."
"6. The claimants are domiciled in England. The defendant is a corporation registered in Delaware and has its principal place of business in California. The claimants therefore had to obtain the permission of the court pursuant to CPR 6.36 and Practice Direction (PD) 6B to serve the proceedings on the defendant in California."