clearly designed for the online environment,
86 as it is stated in the corresponding
recital of the GDPR.
87
A right with such an extensive scope has no equivalent in the other jurisdictions
covered by the present study.
88 However, in most countries, as is the case of
South Africa
89 and Brazil,
90 there is a general right to obtain the erasure of personal
data whenever their processing is no longer authorized, similar to that which was
already set out in Directive 95/46/EC.
91 Japan stands out in this respect, for its
restrictive understanding of the right to erasure of personal data processed by
electronic means. In Japan, there are no statutory laws or administrative guidelines
regulating a right to the erasure of personal data comparable to that of the GDPR.
Additionally, court cases in that country have emphasized the importance of other
legal interests whenever there is a request to remove contents from search results. In
particular, the Japanese Supreme Court has held that a search engine service provider
is under the obligation to delete search results only in the event that the legal interests
involved in the deletion are clearly superior to the legal interests involved in
providing the search results. This court has stressed the social importance of the
search engine in the Internet era.
92 Nevertheless, case law in Japan confirms that
search engines are obliged to erase results containing infringements, including, thus,
infringements to data protection legislation.
It can therefore be concluded that although most jurisdictions covered by this
report recognize a right to the erasure of personal data, currently the broadest and
most detailed provisions in this respect are set forth in the GDPR.
In this respect, the United States also differ from most countries for not having a
provision or relevant case law related to a general right to delete personal data,
particularly in the online context.
86 Following the CJEU decision in the Google Spain case, there are some relevant case law and
administrative decisions relating to this topic. The Portuguese data protection authority, for
example, issued a decision (section 536/2016, not publicly available) imposing on a search engine
operator the removal of search results relating to a public figure that was under the suspicion of
having committed a crime 8 years earlier. See the Portuguese National Report, Sect. 2.
87 See the GDPR, recital 66.
88 See, for example, the Canadian National Report, Sect. 2.2.
89 See the South African National Report, Sect. 4.1.4.
90 See the Brazilian National Report, Sect. 3.3.
91 The Law section 13.709, of 13 August 2018, on the protection of personal data introduce this
right. See the Brazilian National Report, Sect. 3.3.
92 See the Japanese National Report, Sect. 3.1.3.
Data Protection in the Internet: General Report
19
86 as it is stated in the corresponding
recital of the GDPR.
87
A right with such an extensive scope has no equivalent in the other jurisdictions
covered by the present study.
88 However, in most countries, as is the case of
South Africa
89 and Brazil,
90 there is a general right to obtain the erasure of personal
data whenever their processing is no longer authorized, similar to that which was
already set out in Directive 95/46/EC.
91 Japan stands out in this respect, for its
restrictive understanding of the right to erasure of personal data processed by
electronic means. In Japan, there are no statutory laws or administrative guidelines
regulating a right to the erasure of personal data comparable to that of the GDPR.
Additionally, court cases in that country have emphasized the importance of other
legal interests whenever there is a request to remove contents from search results. In
particular, the Japanese Supreme Court has held that a search engine service provider
is under the obligation to delete search results only in the event that the legal interests
involved in the deletion are clearly superior to the legal interests involved in
providing the search results. This court has stressed the social importance of the
search engine in the Internet era.
92 Nevertheless, case law in Japan confirms that
search engines are obliged to erase results containing infringements, including, thus,
infringements to data protection legislation.
It can therefore be concluded that although most jurisdictions covered by this
report recognize a right to the erasure of personal data, currently the broadest and
most detailed provisions in this respect are set forth in the GDPR.
In this respect, the United States also differ from most countries for not having a
provision or relevant case law related to a general right to delete personal data,
particularly in the online context.
86 Following the CJEU decision in the Google Spain case, there are some relevant case law and
administrative decisions relating to this topic. The Portuguese data protection authority, for
example, issued a decision (section 536/2016, not publicly available) imposing on a search engine
operator the removal of search results relating to a public figure that was under the suspicion of
having committed a crime 8 years earlier. See the Portuguese National Report, Sect. 2.
87 See the GDPR, recital 66.
88 See, for example, the Canadian National Report, Sect. 2.2.
89 See the South African National Report, Sect. 4.1.4.
90 See the Brazilian National Report, Sect. 3.3.
91 The Law section 13.709, of 13 August 2018, on the protection of personal data introduce this
right. See the Brazilian National Report, Sect. 3.3.
92 See the Japanese National Report, Sect. 3.1.3.
Data Protection in the Internet: General Report
19