header-logo header-logo

The Right to Erasure: an (edited?) history

22 July 2020
Issue: 7896 / Categories: Features , Privacy , Human rights
printer mail-detail
24639
The evolution of the right to erasure & how it is now being used in practice, by Alex Keenlyside & Hannah Crowther
  • 2014: the CJEU establishes a ‘right to be forgotten’.
  • 2018: the GDPR introduces a ‘right to erasure’.

It’s been over six years since the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) first established a ‘right to be forgotten’ in 2014, in the fight by Mr Costeja to have links to news articles about his bankruptcy de-listed from Google Search results (Google Spain SL and another company v Agencia Espanola de proteccion de Datos (AEPD) and another, [2014] All ER (D) 124 (May)). Then, in 2018, the GDPR introduced the far more expansive (if rather less poetic) ‘right to erasure’, exercisable against any controller. In this article, we consider the evolution of the right in the UK, and how it is now being used in practice.

In Costeja, the CJEU decided that news articles and other content, even if lawfully published online, should

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll