Google v. CNIL (2019): The Geographic Limits of the Right to Be Forgotten

“Does the EU’s right to be forgotten apply to Google Search worldwide?” Google v. CNIL shows how data protection and freedom of expression can clash across borders.

Hello! Today we summarize the Google v. CNIL (2019) judgment. The dispute concerned how the EU’s Right to be Forgotten applies to Google’s global search engine. The French regulator CNIL argued that Google must apply delisting (de-referencing) not only to EU domains but to search results worldwide, while Google pushed back, citing freedom of expression and the risk of international conflicts. Studying this case made me rethink how digital rights collide with the very concept of borders.

Contents

Background and Facts Key Issue: The Geographic Scope of Delisting The Judgment and Reasoning Impact on the EU Legal System Criticism and Academic Debate Contemporary Significance and Takeaways

Background and Facts

Following the Google Spain (2014) ruling, the EU recognized the right of data subjects to request search-result removal—i.e., the right to be forgotten. France’s data protection authority, CNIL, ordered Google to apply delisting not only on EU domains (.fr, .de, etc.) but also on all global search results (such as google.com). Google argued this demand was excessive and could conflict with freedom of expression and other jurisdictions’ laws. The case reached the CJEU, raising a new question about the right to be forgotten’s geographic scope.

Key Issue: The Geographic Scope of Delisting

At stake was whether EU delisting requests can bind Google’s search results worldwide. A global effect would extend EU regulation into other countries’ free-expression domains, while an EU-only effect could weaken the practical effectiveness of the right to be forgotten in the digital space.

Issue	Global Application	Application within the EU
Data protection	Ensures the highest level of protection	Protection confined to the EU; access from outside may remain
Freedom of expression	Risk of infringing other countries’ free-speech regimes	Minimizes international conflicts
International-law legitimacy	Concern over encroaching on other States’ sovereignty	Rationalizable as a regional measure

The Judgment and Reasoning

The CJEU held that Google is not required to ensure delisting on search results worldwide. However, it must ensure delisting within the EU. The reasoning:

• EU law has direct effect only within the EU’s territory.
• Worldwide application could clash with other countries’ free-speech protections and regulatory frameworks.
• Nevertheless, effective delisting measures must operate within the EU.

Impact on the EU Legal System

Google v. CNIL clarified the geographic limits of the right to be forgotten in the EU. It shows how data protection and freedom of expression may conflict in an international setting. After the ruling, the EU maintained strong delisting obligations within its territory while refraining from asserting universal extraterritorial reach—an approach seen as measured restraint regarding the external scope of EU law.

Criticism and Academic Debate

The ruling drew mixed reactions: some argued it was not strong enough to protect EU citizens’ data, while others praised it as a sensible way to avoid overextending EU regulation globally.

Perspective	Main Argument
Critical	Limiting the effect to the EU weakens real protection; personal data may still be reachable via non-EU searches
Supportive	Balances strong protection within the EU with restraint to avoid conflicts with other countries’ free-speech regimes

Contemporary Significance and Takeaways

Today, Google v. CNIL is a leading case on how internet regulation meets borders. Key takeaways:

• A precedent illustrating the international balancing of data protection and freedom of expression
• Strong EU-only delisting obligations paired with international-law restraint
• Underscores the importance of the “inside–outside the EU” distinction in global internet regulation debates

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q What is Google v. CNIL?

A case about whether the EU’s right to be forgotten requires Google to delist search results worldwide.

Q Who brought the case?

France’s data protection authority, CNIL, demanded that Google delist results across all global domains, triggering the dispute.

Q What was the legal issue?

Whether the EU right to be forgotten has worldwide effect or is confined to the EU.

Q How did the CJEU decide?

Google is not required to delist results worldwide, but it must delist within the EU.

Q What does the ruling mean?

EU law applies robustly within the EU but shows restraint to avoid conflicts with other legal orders abroad.

Q Is it still important today?

Yes. It is a staple precedent when discussing the scope of the EU’s right to be forgotten in global internet regulation.

In Closing

Google v. CNIL (2019) reminds us that even on a “borderless internet,” legal boundaries still matter. For application tips, frame proportionality around ① the data subject’s rights, ② freedom of expression and the right to know, and ③ inside–outside EU effects. On exams, the geographic scope is a common pitfall—state clearly the “mandatory in-EU + restraint outside the EU” conclusion. In practice, the implementation details—geoblocking, EU IP–based delisting, and management of public-interest exceptions—are key. If you have a scenario in mind, let’s build a checklist together. 🙂