Argentine Supreme Court of Justice Revokes Ruling that Recognized the Right to Be Forgotten

The facts of the case are as follows: Natalia Denegri sued Google Inc. to have certain content, videos, and news articles related to the “Coppola case” removed from the search results of its Internet search engine. Even though she acknowledged them to be true, she understood that they were old, irrelevant, and unnecessary.

The first instance court partially accepted the plaintiff’s request, recognizing the right to be forgotten. However, part of the requests were rejected, on the grounds of their being  considered of public interest and a part of our “collective memory” (for more information on this, please refer to our article here).

The decision was appealed by Google and later confirmed by the Civil Court of Appeals. Google filed a Federal Extraordinary Appeal to have the ruling reviewed by the Supreme Court of Justice.

After a public hearing, on June 28, 2022, the Supreme Court revoked the appealed judgment and rejected the plaintiff's claims, stating that in this specific case, the right to freedom of expression prevails over the right to be forgotten invoked by the plaintiff.

To draw this conclusion, the Supreme Court considered that:

• Our Constitution grants an extensive protection to the right to freedom of expression.
• Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a democratic society.
• Internet search engines have a fundamental role when using the internet, as they facilitate the access to the content users seek.
• The importance of the right to freedom of expression means that any restriction, sanction, or limitation of such freedom must be interpreted restrictively and with a presumption of unconstitutionality.
• The contents challenged by the plaintiff are related to the wide media coverage of the “Cóppola case", a case of great interest in our society.
• Natalia Denegri became notorious for her connection with the "Cóppola case" and for participating in talk shows covering the case. In such sense, the Supreme Court considered that the plaintiff is still a public figure as a media entrepreneur, television host, and winner of numerous international awards for her professional work.
• The right to freedom of expression must be even more intensely protected by the Supreme Court whenever it involves public officials, public persons, or matters of public interest, due to the critical constitutional value it seeks to safeguard. The access to matters of public interest allows for debate, and is therefore an essential guarantee of the Republican System.
• The mere course of time does not mean that the news or information have ceased to be a part of the public debate, and accepting such argument puts the history of our society in danger.
• The contents challenged by the plaintiff are the consequence of acts freely chosen by her in the development of her personality, and therefore cannot be protected by the right to honor.