University Case Study: Privacy Rights in Google vs. Costeja Conflict

This case study analyzes the legal conflict between Google and Costeja, focusing on the clash between the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten. The case revolves around Costeja's request for Google to remove information that he believed was damaging to his reputation. The study identifies key issues such as Google's adherence to privacy policies and the potential impact of data removal on its search engine algorithm. Recommendations include Google issuing clear guidelines on its privacy policies to inform stakeholders and provide evidence in potential lawsuits. The conclusion highlights the challenges the 'right to be forgotten' poses to Google's business activities and suggests that implementing the recommendations can mitigate future legal issues. The analysis incorporates relevant literature and provides a comprehensive overview of the case's implications for privacy rights in the digital age.

Running head: PRIVACY
Privacy
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1PRIVACY
Right to privacy Vs Right to be forgotten
Synopsis
In the given case, what Google faced is the clash between the right to privacy and the
right to be forgotten (Harkiolakis, 2013). This is due to the reason that, in the case of Google vs
Costeja, court rules out that being the data provider, Google should remove any data, which will
harm the privacy of any individuals (Ambrose, 2012). According to the Costeja, some
information about him being available in the Google has the potential to affect his image. Thus,
he wants Google to remove the information that can malign his image. However, according to
Google, this information is not breaching their privacy policies.
Identified issues
However, Google adhere with the right to privacy act, which states that they cannot
publish any types of the private data in their portal. According to Google, this ruling will
adversely affect their business policy due to the fact that, several users will ask for removing any
data that they think that the particular information will harm their privacy or reputation. Thus,
the basic motive or objective of the search engine being provided by Google will be diluted.
Thus, the key issue that will be faced by Google will be the removal of the relevant as well as
irrelevant information from their search engine. According to the sorting process of information
of Google, they involve a specific algorithm mechanism for providing the information in the
search engine (Lazer et al., 2014). Thus, removal of the data will adversely affect the entire
process of providing search results.
Moreover, there will be a clash between the policy of Google and the understanding of
the complainers. This is due to the reason that, according to the standard policy being followed

2PRIVACY
by Google, they will remove the data from their search engine, which they will find
inappropriate for the publication (Hashem et al., 2015). However, in the case of the right to
forgotten, the extent of removing the content from the site will be depended on the attitude and
belief of the complainers. This is due to the reason that, if the complainers found that any data in
the search engine is harming their reputation will ask for the removal. However, the information
that is being asked for removal may adhere with the privacy policy of Google.
Recommendations
Recommendations for this issue include issuing a standard guideline by Google about
their privacy policies. It will make every stakeholders being aware about the policies followed by
them. In addition, it will help Google in acting as evidence in future in case of lawsuits. This will
enable Google to present arguments that all the stakeholders are prior adhered with their policies
and thus by accessing their service and information, it is being assumed that they have complied
with the regulations.
Conclusion
Thus, it can be concluded that, the right to forgotten will obviously create barrier in the
business activities of Google. The entire business potentiality of them will get adversely affected
due to the initiation of the right to forgotten act. However, it is being expected that the effective
implementation of the recommendations being given will help to reduce the possibilities of the
lawsuits in future.

3PRIVACY
Reference
Ambrose, M. L. (2012). It's about time: privacy, information life cycles, and the right to be
forgotten. Stan. Tech. L. Rev., 16, 369.
Harkiolakis, N. (2013). Right to Privacy. In Encyclopedia of Corporate Social
Responsibility (pp. 2082-2087). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Hashem, I. A. T., Yaqoob, I., Anuar, N. B., Mokhtar, S., Gani, A., & Khan, S. U. (2015). The
rise of “big data” on cloud computing: Review and open research issues. Information
Systems, 47, 98-115.
Lazer, D., Kennedy, R., King, G., & Vespignani, A. (2014). The parable of Google Flu: traps in
big data analysis. Science, 343(6176), 1203-1205.