In short. Search-result erasure is conditional: GDPR Article 17 exceptions and the balance between privacy and access to information govern delisting requests.
Definition: No. Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides a conditional right to erasure, with exceptions for necessary processing, including freedom of expression and information. For search results, delisting usually removes links from searches based on a person's name while the source page remains available.
Key facts
- GDPR Article 17 sets out grounds for erasure and exceptions that apply only to the extent that processing is necessary.
- The European Data Protection Board (EDPB), in its Guidelines 5/2019, distinguishes search-engine processing from the original publisher's processing; the balancing exercise can produce different outcomes for each.
- The EDPB's June 2026 delisting factsheet places the burden on search engines to demonstrate compelling legitimate grounds when a person objects on grounds relating to their particular situation.
What does Article 17 require?
A controller is the person or organisation that determines the purposes and means of processing personal data. Under GDPR Article 17(1), a controller must erase personal data without undue delay when an applicable ground is met. Grounds include data that are no longer necessary for the processing purpose, unlawful processing, and an objection under Article 21(1) where no overriding legitimate grounds remain.
Article 17(3) qualifies that obligation where processing is necessary:
- Article 17(3)(a) covers freedom of expression and information.
- Article 17(3)(b) covers a legal obligation requiring processing, a task carried out in the public interest, or official authority vested in the controller.
- Article 17(3)(c) covers public-health interests under the specified conditions in Article 9.
- Article 17(3)(d) covers public-interest archiving, scientific or historical research, or statistics under Article 89(1), where erasure is likely to make the objectives impossible or seriously impair them.
- Article 17(3)(e) covers establishing, exercising or defending legal claims.
These exceptions require an assessment of necessity for the processing concerned. The EDPB's search-engine guidance considers most poorly suited to delisting and describes reliance on the legal-claims exception to refuse a request as very unlikely.
How are privacy and access to information balanced?
The EDPB's Guidelines 5/2019, adopted on 7 July 2020, explain that the person's rights generally prevail over internet users' interest in accessing information through a search engine. The outcome depends on the information's nature and sensitivity, the public interest in access, and the person's role in public life.
The same guidance requires a case-specific assessment of whether retaining a result is strictly necessary to protect freedom of information. It also considers the passage of time: an example concerns a company website that still lists contact details for someone who no longer works there.
For objections under Article 21(1), read with Article 17(1)(c), the search engine must demonstrate compelling legitimate grounds overriding the person's interests, rights and freedoms. The guidance identifies effects on job applications or personal reputation as circumstances relevant to the person's objection.
Does a publisher's duty to keep a page online prevent delisting?
The EDPB's guidelines, paragraphs 61 to 65, distinguish a publication obligation imposed on a website from an obligation imposed on a search engine. A duty binding the publisher cannot automatically serve as the search engine's legal-obligation exception under Article 17(3)(b).
That publication duty remains relevant evidence of public interest when balancing access against privacy. A page can therefore remain lawfully available while a link is removed from name-based search results. Other search terms may still retrieve it.
The same guidance says that a search engine invoking the research or statistics exception must objectively pursue those purposes itself. Research conducted by its users belongs in the wider balancing assessment.
Related terms
FAQ
Can you seek delisting while the original article stays online?
Yes. The EDPB's delisting guidance treats the search engine and publisher separately. Removing a result associated with your name can leave the original article accessible.
Does a role in public life automatically defeat your request?
The EDPB's June 2026 factsheet treats your public role as a factor in assessing public interest. The search engine must weigh that interest against the interference with your privacy.
What can you do if a refusal infringes your rights?
Under GDPR Article 77(1), you can complain to a supervisory authority, including in the EU Member State of your habitual residence, workplace or the alleged infringement.
Sources
- European Parliament and Council, "Regulation (EU) 2016/679", 27 April 2016
- European Data Protection Board, "Guidelines 5/2019 on the criteria of the Right to be Forgotten in the search engines cases under the GDPR (part 1)", 7 July 2020
- European Data Protection Board, "Search engine delisting: When to act and what to do", June 2026
Check how a page reads to answer engines. Open the GEO score analyzer