header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
22 July 2020
Issue: 7896 / Categories: Features , Privacy , Human rights
printer mail-detail

The Right to Erasure: an (edited?) history

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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,

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll