July 7, 2015
Chairwoman Edith Ramirez
Commissioner Julie Brill
Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen
Commissioner Joshua D. Wright
Commissioner Terrell McSweeny
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20580
Re: Complaint Regarding Google’s Failure To Offer ‘Right To Be Forgotten’ In The U.S.
Dear Chairwoman Ramirez and Commissioners Brill, Ohlhausen, Wright and McSweeny:
I am writing on behalf of Consumer Watchdog, a nationally recognized nonprofit,
nonpartisan consumer education and advocacy organization, to formally lodge a complaint about
Google’s failure to offer U.S. users the ability to request the removal of search engine links from
their name to information that is inadequate, irrelevant, no longer relevant, or excessive. In
Europe the ability to make this request is popularly referred to as the Right To Be Forgotten. As
Commissioner Brill has suggested it may more accurately be described as the Right Of
Relevancy or the Right To Preserve Obscurity.1 Google’s refusal to honor the right and consider
such removal requests in the United States while holding itself out to be concerned about users’
privacy is both unfair and deceptive, violating Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
We urge the Commission to investigate and act.
Here is why the Right To Be Forgotten – or Right of Relevancy – is so important to
protecting consumers’ privacy in the digital age: Before the Internet if someone did something
foolish when they were young – and most of us probably did – there might well be a public
record of what happened. Over time, as they aged, people tended to forget whatever
embarrassing things someone did in their youth. They would be judged mostly based on their
current circumstances, not on information no longer relevant. If someone else were highly
motivated, they could go back into paper files and folders and dig up a person’s past. Usually
this required effort and motivation. For a reporter, for instance, this sort of deep digging was
routine with, say, candidates for public office, not for Joe Blow citizen. This reality that our
youthful indiscretions and embarrassments and other matters no longer relevant slipped from the
general public’s consciousness is Privacy By Obscurity. The Digital Age has ended that.
Everything – all our digital footprints – are instantly available with a few clicks on a computer or
taps on a mobile device.

1

Julie Brill, Privacy in the Age of Omniscience: Approaches in the United States and Europe,
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/581751/140911mentorgroup.pdf

 In fact the Right of Relevancy is also recognized in some U.S. laws. For example the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, which the FTC also enforces, requires that after a certain period of
time – seven years in most cases – information about debt collections, civil lawsuits, tax liens,
and even arrests for criminal offenses become obsolete and must be taken out of consumer
reports.2
Google’s anti-consumer behavior around privacy issues is deceptive. The Internet giant
holds itself out to be committed to users’ privacy, but does not honor requests that provide a key
privacy protection. Google explains: “We know security and privacy are important to you – and
they are important to us, too. We make it a priority to provide strong security and give you
confidence that your information is safe and accessible when you need it. We’re constantly
working to ensure strong security, protect your privacy, and make Google even more effective
and efficient for you.3” Recently Google said, “Protecting the privacy and security of our
customers’ information is a top priority, and we take compliance very seriously.4” In its Privacy
& Terms Technologies and Principles Google claims, “We comply with privacy laws, and
additionally work internally and with regulators and industry partners to develop and implement
strong privacy standards… People have different privacy concerns and needs. To best serve the
full range of our users, Google strives to offer them meaningful and fine-gained choices over the
use of their personal information.5”
In other words the Internet giant aggressively and repeatedly holds itself out to users as
being deeply committed to privacy. Without a doubt requesting the removal of a search engine
link from one’s name to irrelevant data under the Right To Be Forgotten (or Right to Relevancy)
is an important privacy option. Though Google claims it is concerned about users’ privacy, it
does not offer U.S. users the ability to make this basic request. Describing yourself as
championing users’ privacy while not offering a key privacy tool – indeed one offered all across
Europe – is deceptive behavior.
Not offering Americans a basic privacy tool, while providing it to millions of users across
Europe, is also an unfair practice. Acts or practices by a business are unfair under Section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission Act if they cause or are likely to cause substantial injury to
consumers that consumers cannot reasonably avoid themselves and that is not outweighed by
countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.6 Here are some examples of people who
have been harmed by Google’s refusal to honor Right of Relevancy or Right To Be Forgotten
removal requests in the United States. Clearly there is no countervailing benefit in continuing to
link to the items from search results. Consider these examples:

2

15 U.S.C. § 1681c.
Google Privacy & Terms FAQ, http://www.google.com/policies/faq/, accessed April 27, 2015
4
Our commitment to protecting your Google Apps information,
http://googleforwork.blogspot.com/2015/04/our-commitment-to-protecting-your-Google-Appsinformation.html, accessed April 27, 2015
5
Privacy& Terms Technological Principles, http://www.google.com/policies/technologies/,
accessed April 27, 2015.
6
15 U.S.C. § 45(n)
3

2

 •

A young California woman was decapitated in a tragic auto accident. Photos from the
grisly accident scene were wrongfully leaked by California Highway Patrol officers and
posted to the Internet. A search on her name still returns the horrible photographs.7

•

A guidance counselor was fired in 2012 after modeling photos from 20 years prior
surfaced. She was a lingerie model between the ages of 18-20, and she had disclosed her
prior career when she first was hired. Despite this, when a photo was found online and
shown to the principal of her school, she was fired.8

•

A Florida doctor locked herself in the bedroom to hide from her violent boyfriend. He
used a steak knife to jimmy the door open. As he entered she scratched his chest with her
fingernails. When the police arrived, both she and her boyfriend were arrested, her
boyfriend having claimed the scratches on his chest were from the knife. She was
charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and battery domestic violence.
The charges against were soon dropped. Soon after her photo showed up on a mug-shot
website. Anyone who Googled her name found this information as one of the top results.
The mug-shot websites demanded hundreds of dollars to remove the photos. 9

Honoring the Right To Be Forgotten, or Right To Relevancy, is an important tool to
protect privacy. Google’s own experience in Europe demonstrates that Right To Be Forgotten
removal requests can be managed in a way that is fair and not burdensome for Google. Since
Google began considering Right To Be Forgotten requests last May, Google has received
274,462 removal requests. The Internet giant evaluated 997,008 URLs for removal from its
search results, and has dropped 348,794 or 41.3 percent. It declined to remove 495,673, or 58.7
percent of the links.10 Here are some of those cases:
•

A woman in Italy requested that Google remove a decades-old article about her
husband’s murder, which included her name. The page was removed from search results
for her name.

•

A Swiss financial professional asked Google to remove more than 10 links to pages
reporting on his arrest and conviction for financial crimes. Google did not remove the
pages from search results.

7

The Solace of Oblivion, Jeffrey Tooben, The New Yorker,
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/29/solace-oblivion, accessed April 28, 2015
8
Manhattan HS guidance counselor stripped of job over steamy photo past, Susan Edelman,
New York Post, http://nypost.com/2012/10/07/manhattan-hs-guidance-counselor-stripped-ofjob-over-steamy-photo-past/, accessed April 28, 2015
9
Mugged by a Mug Shot Online, David Segal, The New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/business/mugged-by-a-mug-shotonline.html?pagewanted=all&_r=3&, accessed April 28,m 2015
10
Google Transparency Report, European privacy requests for search removals,
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/europeprivacy/?hl=en, accessed June 24,
2015
3

 •

A rape victim in Germany asked Google to remove a link to a newspaper article about the
crime. The page was removed from search results for the individual’s name.

•

Google received multiple requests from an Italian asking Google to remove 20 links to
recent articles about his arrest for financial crimes committed in a professional capacity.
Google did not remove the pages from search results.

•

A media professional in the UK asked Google to remove four links to articles reporting
on embarrassing content he posted to the Internet. Google did not remove the pages from
search results.

•

An Italian crime victim asked Google to remove three links that discuss the crime, which
occurred decades ago. The pages were removed from search results for her name.

•

In the UK a man asked Google to remove links to articles on the Internet that reference
his dismissal for sexual crimes committed on the job. Google did not remove the pages
from search results. 11

Interestingly enough, Google says it will remove certain types of links from its search
results in the United States: “We want to organize the world’s information, but some content on
the web is sensitive or not appropriate for everyone to see… When it will help keep you safe and
avoid harm, we may remove personal information from Google Search results. 12” Google lists
the following information as data that it will remove: National identification numbers like U.S.
Social Security Number, Argentina Single Tax Identification Number, Brazil Cadastro de
pessoas Físicas, Korea Resident Registration Number, China Resident Identity Card, etc.; Bank
account numbers, credit card numbers, images of signatures.13 Google just announced it would
honor requests to remove links from its search results to so-called “revenge porn” – nude or
explicit photos posted without the subject’s consent.14 Google’s approach to removals in the
United States underscores the unfairness of offering the Right To Be Forgotten to Europeans, but
not to Americans. As clearly demonstrated by its willingness to remove links to certain
information when requested in the United States, Google could easily offer the Right To Be
Forgotten or Right To Relevancy request option to Americans. It unfairly and deceptively opts
not to do so.
It is important to understand what the Right To Be Forgotten or Right to Relevancy as
implemented by the Internet giant in Europe does and does not do. It is not censorship. It does
not remove content from the Web. It would not raise First Amendment issues in the United
States. The right simply allows a person to request that links from their name to data that is
11

Ibid
Google Removal Policies, https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/2744324, accessed
April 27, 2015
13
Ibid
14
“Revenge Porn” and Search, Google Public Policy Blog,
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2015/06/revenge-porn-and-search.html, accessed June
24, 2015
12

4

 inadequate, irrelevant, no longer relevant, or excessive be removed from search results.
Americans deserve the same ability to make such a privacy-protecting request and have it
honored.
Now, the Right To Be Forgotten in Europe is simply restoring the balance provided with
Privacy By Obscurity for the Digital Age. The right simply allows a European to identify links
that are no longer relevant and ask for their removal. Removal won’t always happen, but the
balance Google has found between privacy and the public’s right to know demonstrates Google
can make the Right to Be Forgotten or Right To Relevancy work in the United States. The
Internet giant’s current approach of refusing to do so while claiming to protect users’ privacy is
both unfair and deceptive. Consumer Watchdog calls on the Commission to act.
Sincerely,

John M. Simpson
Privacy Project Director
Cc: Jessica Rich, Director Bureau of Consumer Protection; Chris Olsen, Deputy Director
Bureau of Consumer Protection

5