Freedom of Expression or Right to Be Forgotten?

A plaintiff sought the removal of his name from search engine results following an incident that occurred in 2021, in which he was charged with alleged animal abuse. The incident took place when the plaintiff, accompanied by his nine-year-old daughter, was walking his dog, who became involved in a fight with a neighbor’s dog. During the incident, the neighbor’s dog allegedly attacked the child, prompting the father to strike the animal. The episode was recorded by a third party and disseminated on social media and digital news outlets, giving rise to criminal proceedings (“Cristian v Google Argentina SRL et al re autonomous expedited relief”, Case No. 5974/25, decision dated December 5, 2025).

The plaintiff based his request for removal on the argument that the continued availability of links associated with his name affected his professional and family life, including receiving hostile messages and experiencing difficulties in obtaining employment.

The search engine defended the continued availability of the content, arguing that it concerned truthful information relating to a matter of general interest and that it was not unlawful. It further noted that the liability of search engines is triggered only upon effective notice of content that is manifestly unlawful.

The court concluded that neither the alleged damages nor the unlawfulness of the disseminated content had been established. In its analysis, it weighed the conflict between the right to honor and the right to freedom of expression, emphasizing that although the claimant is not a public figure, the events were connected to a criminal investigation and to a socially relevant debate on animal protection.

In line with the doctrine established in the Denegri case, resolved by the Argentine Supreme Court, the court held that the protection of freedom of expression and the right to information extends even to content that may be uncomfortable or embarrassing for those involved, where it concerns matters of public interest. Accordingly, the court rejected the request for de-indexing and upheld the freedom of expression in the digital environment.