3
Upholding the extraterritorial reach of the right to
be forgotten as sought by the CNIL abridges and
curtails the ability of U.S. multinational companies
to conduct business in ways that they see ï¬t,
and in ways that are completely lawful.
CNIL rejected the compromise, insisting that full
compliance with French law means delisting qualifying
information from Google domains globally, regardless
of the physical location of the person searching for the
information. As a practical matter, France wants
Google to suppress information that qualifies under the
right to be forgotten from any person’s Google search
done anywhere in the world.
In July 2015, Google appealed the a100,000
($112,066) fine, defending its right to freely conduct
business and freedom of expression beyond French
borders. For Google, the amount of the fine is hardly
the issue.
Rather, Google maintains that complying
with French law should not impede the access of information outside of France.
Implications of CNIL’s Approach to the Right
to Be Forgotten
Upholding the extraterritorial reach of the right to be
forgotten as sought by CNIL not only abridges and cur-
PRIVACY & SECURITY LAW REPORT
ISSN 1538-3423
tails the ability of U.S. multinational companies to conduct business in ways that they see fit, but also in ways
that are completely lawful. Removing or suppressing information available from search engines on a worldwide basis limits the universe of available information
for businesses and consumers alike, and directly infringes on an equally basic right to freedom of expression.
As a practical matter, extending the reach of the
right to be forgotten constrains how search engine providers do business, particularly because their principal
purpose is to collect, organize and disseminate information for public access.
If upheld, French law would control the search engine results of a person accessing Google in the U.S.
The foregoing sets a dangerous precedent, raising questions of state sovereignty and conflicts of laws, and triggering a slippery slope of extraterritorial rule over the
availability of information over the Internet. U.S. businesses and consumers accessing information that is
lawfully disseminated over the internet would be hampered by search results that are limited by CNIL’s take
on the right to be forgotten.
Cutting off sections of the
internet as dictated by a nation-state tends to legitimize
the efforts of countries like China, Iran and Turkey that
have long controlled, or attempted to control, the information their citizens access online.
Although each country may have a right to protect
the personal privacy of its citizens in ways that it sees
fit, this right should not impede the rights of other
countries to do the same. If upheld, the approach to personal privacy proscribed by CNIL threatens to trample
the equal and competing legitimate rights of businesses
and
consumers
outside
the
EU.
BNA
6-20-16
.