Meta Description: Explore the legal concept of the Right to Be Forgotten, its recognition in the EU, and its contentious status under US First Amendment law. Learn about US state-level privacy measures and how they differ from the European model.
Is the Right to Be Forgotten a Legal Right in the US?
In our hyper-connected digital age, information—good and bad—seems to live forever. For many, the concept of a clean slate is a practical impossibility when a simple search can dredge up old indiscretions, outdated news, or personal data. This challenge has fueled the debate over the Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF), a privacy concept that has gained significant legal footing in Europe. But what is its status here in the United States? The answer is complex, pitting the desire for personal privacy against the cherished protections of the First Amendment.
What is the Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF)?
The Right to Be Forgotten is the right of an individual to request that search engines and other data controllers remove links to private information about them from search results under certain circumstances. This right is aimed at allowing individuals to “determine the development of their life in an autonomous way,” without being perpetually stigmatized by past actions or information.
🔑 Key Distinction: RTBF vs. Privacy
The RTBF is distinct from general privacy rights. Privacy typically concerns information that is not publicly known. The RTBF, conversely, involves revoking public access to information that was known publicly at a certain time, often by removing search engine links to it.
The European Union Model: GDPR’s ‘Right of Erasure’
The most prominent example of the RTBF is found in the European Union (EU). The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) explicitly grants individuals the “right of erasure” (Article 17), which is often referred to as the Right to Be Forgotten.
| Grounds | Description |
|---|---|
| No Longer Necessary | The personal data is no longer necessary for the purpose it was collected. |
| Consent Withdrawn | The individual withdraws consent to process their data. |
| Unlawful Processing | The data has been processed unlawfully. |
When reviewing a request, search engines in the EU must weigh the individual’s right to privacy against the public’s right to know. They often consider if the information is “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes for which they were processed”.
The RTBF in the United States: A Conflict with the First Amendment
Unlike the EU, the United States does not recognize a general Right to Be Forgotten as a legal concept. The primary legal barrier is the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and the press.
❗ Caution: First Amendment Protection
U.S. courts have generally held that forcing service providers or the press to remove truthful, legally-obtained public information would constitute an impermissible form of compelled speech or violate free-press rulings.
A key difference lies in the balance. While Europe prioritizes personal data protection and privacy, the U.S. legal system gives greater weight to the free flow of truthful information and public discourse. Legal cases challenging this lack of a right, such as *Garcia v. Google, Inc.*, have confirmed that the RTBF is “not recognized in the United States”.
State-Level Measures and the ‘Eraser Law’
Despite the lack of a federal RTBF, some states have implemented targeted privacy protections that offer a limited “right to delete”.
Case Note: California’s ‘Eraser Law’
California’s “Eraser Law” (SB 568), effective January 1, 2015, grants minors the right to “remove or request and obtain removal” of content or information they personally posted on an operator’s website or online service. This is a significant step, though it is limited to content posted by a minor and doesn’t compel the actual deletion of the data from the company’s servers. More recently, California’s DELETE Act allows people of all ages to request deletion of personal information held by data brokers.
Other movements toward a type of “forgetting” include state laws allowing for the expungement of certain criminal records after time has passed, which can help remove the social consequences of a past record.
Private Industry Responses and Future Trends
Even without a legal mandate, some major online platforms are taking voluntary steps that resemble the RTBF, largely driven by consumer support for greater online privacy. Google, for instance, has expanded its policies to allow U.S. citizens to request the removal of certain personally identifiable information (PII) from search results, such as phone numbers, email addresses, and physical addresses. However, this is a company policy, not a legally binding right, and the company still weighs the removal against the public interest.
Summary: Navigating the Digital Footprint
Key Takeaways on the Right to Be Forgotten in the US
- No General Federal Right: The U.S. does not recognize a nationwide Right to Be Forgotten, primarily due to conflicts with First Amendment protections for speech and the press.
- EU vs. US Law: The European model, codified in the GDPR, is a clear legal right allowing for the erasure of data that is inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive.
- State-Level Exceptions: Specific state laws, like California’s “Eraser Law” and DELETE Act, offer limited rights to remove certain content (minors’ posts) or delete information held by data brokers, respectively.
- Voluntary Removal: Individuals can sometimes request the removal of certain PII (like addresses or phone numbers) directly from search engine companies, but this is based on company policy, not a legal mandate.
Final Consideration for Your Digital Reputation
While the full, EU-style Right to Be Forgotten is not a reality in the U.S., individuals are not powerless. It’s essential to understand the existing state-level deletion laws, utilize company-specific removal request policies, and proactively manage your digital footprint to mitigate the visibility of outdated or embarrassing information.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
A: Generally, no. U.S. courts have rejected the Right to Be Forgotten. If the article is factually accurate and relates to a public record or newsworthy event, its removal would likely be barred by the First Amendment.
A: No. California’s law is much narrower; it only applies to content posted by minors who are registered users and does not compel the permanent deletion of data from the company’s servers. The EU’s RTBF is a broad right of erasure for all citizens.
A: Not immediately. Search engines take time to crawl and update their indexes. However, if the source content is removed from the web, the search result links will eventually update. You can sometimes request a temporary removal of the search snippet.
A: Not necessarily. While expungement legally seals the record, it does not always force third-party news organizations or private data brokers to remove information they legally obtained and published prior to the expungement order.
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer
This content is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional legal advice from a qualified Legal Expert. Laws, especially those concerning technology and privacy, are constantly changing. Always consult with a legal professional regarding your specific situation and jurisdiction. This article was generated with the assistance of an artificial intelligence model.
By staying informed about both the limitations of U.S. law and the growing voluntary efforts by tech companies, you can better manage your digital footprint. Understanding this complex balance is the first step toward reclaiming your online narrative.
Right to Be Forgotten, First Amendment, privacy, GDPR, Right of Erasure, digital footprint, personal data, expungement, California Eraser Law, data brokers, online reputation, legal procedures
Please consult a qualified legal professional for any specific legal matters.