The Right to be Forgotten in an Alleged Case of Professional Malpractice

A psychologist filed a writ of habeas data pursuant to the terms in Personal Data Protection Law No. 25,326, to have Google Inc. remove certain search engine results in reference to the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that, when searching his first and last name on Google, the search engine brought up links in which he was depicted as the main person responsible for the suicide of a former reality show celebrity. He emphasized that, even though he and the deceased had been friends, he had never treated her professionally and was not responsible for her death, as had previously been held by the court in a criminal case in which charges had been brought against him and were later dismissed. Thus, he claimed that the spread of false and outdated information about him gravely harmed his honor, privacy and professional practice, resulting in damages that are difficult to repair —including financial damage.

The trial court (known locally as a “first instance court”) rejected the motion and emphasized that the mere falsehood of the indexed content was insufficient to grant an injunction, as the opposite could affect the right of freedom of expression.

The plaintiff appealed. On its turn, the Court of Appeals stressed the importance of freedom of expression among the rights enshrined in the Argentine Constitution, which includes the right to convey ideas, facts, and opinions on the Internet. The court also highlighted the relevant role that search engines play by making information available online; thus, rendering them key players for the large-scale dissemination of information —all of which must be weighed against the plaintiff's right to honor and privacy.

The Court then concluded that there was a certain public interest in the dissemination of the contested information on the plaintiff’s relationship with the deceased, being as he is a psychologist. It added that the falsehood and defamatory nature of the content in question had not been demonstrated with anything other than the dismissal of the criminal case. Furthermore, and bringing up the Supreme Court’s standard in “Paquez, Jose v. Google Inc. re. precautionary measures” (Judgments: 342: 2187), the Appeals Court held that blocking content can constitute a serious restriction to the circulation of information, which is deemed as being of public interest, and which prevails over the rights of the plaintiff in the case at law.