Google LLC v Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) [2019]
C-507/17 · Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) · European Union
Privacy and Data Protection Lawprivacy-and-data-protection-lawPrivacy and Data Protection LawTerritorial scope of right to erasure
Issue
Whether the right to erasure requires search engines to delist results on all versions of their search engine worldwide.
Held
No, EU law does not require global delisting; delisting on EU member state versions is sufficient, subject to further balancing by national courts.
Exam use
In an exam, introduce Google LLC v Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what Google LLC v Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Territorial scope of right to erasure, then move quickly to analysis.
Summary
Google LLC v Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) is included in the Privacy and Data Protection Law case database because it gives students a concrete authority for Territorial scope of right to erasure. The reported citation is C-507/17, and the decision is associated with Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber). In revision, treat the case as a way to connect the legal issue to a real dispute rather than as an abstract rule. The key exam move is to state the holding, identify the fact pattern that made the rule matter, and then decide whether a new problem question should apply, distinguish, or limit the authority.
Facts
The material factual signal for Google LLC v Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) is: CNIL fined Google for not delisting search results globally after a right to erasure request. Students should read the linked source and turn that signal into a short fact table: parties, transaction or public-law setting, procedural posture, conduct in dispute, and the fact the court treated as decisive. This prevents vague case-dropping. In an answer on Privacy and Data Protection Law, use the facts to explain why Territorial scope of right to erasure was live, then compare the problem facts against the facts in the case before stating any conclusion.
Procedural History
Google LLC v Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) is reported as a decision of Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber). The procedural route should be checked against the linked source before formal citation. For study notes, record whether the decision was an appeal, judicial review, trial judgment, tribunal ruling, or constitutional/application proceeding, because that posture affects how confidently the rule can be used.
Issue
Whether the right to erasure requires search engines to delist results on all versions of their search engine worldwide.
Held
No, EU law does not require global delisting; delisting on EU member state versions is sufficient, subject to further balancing by national courts.
Ratio Decidendi
The right to erasure is not unlimited extraterritorially; search engines must delist on EU domains but may not be required to delist globally.
Obiter Dicta
Check the linked source for concurring, dissenting, or obiter observations before quoting this case. If the case includes non-binding reasoning, use it as persuasive support rather than as the core rule.
Reasoning
For reasoning, start with the ratio: The right to erasure is not unlimited extraterritorially; search engines must delist on EU domains but may not be required to delist globally. Then read the source and separate three things: the legal test, the facts used to apply that test, and any policy or institutional reason the court gave. This structure makes Google LLC v Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) easier to use in essays and problem questions. In Privacy and Data Protection Law, the case should be compared with related authorities on Territorial scope of right to erasure; if the jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs from the exam problem, explain that limit explicitly instead of treating the authority as automatic.
Plain-English Explanation
Plainly, Google LLC v Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) is a case to use when a Privacy and Data Protection Law answer needs an authority on Territorial scope of right to erasure. Do not just list it. Explain the problem the court had to solve, the rule or holding it used, and the fact that made the result persuasive. That turns the case from a memorised name into evidence for your legal analysis.
Essay-Ready Explanation Generator
Version 1 of 4
Reference to Google LLC v Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) (C-507/17) strengthens a Privacy and Data Protection Law answer because the case reflects the principle that The right to erasure is not unlimited extraterritorially; search engines must delist on EU domains but may not be required to delist globally. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Whether the right to erasure requires search engines to delist results on all versions of their search engine worldwide. The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.
Underlying Concepts
privacy-and-data-protection-law
Privacy and Data Protection Law
Territorial scope of right to erasure
case authority
exam application
Key Passages
Verify exact wording in the linked source before quoting.
Significance
Google LLC v Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) is significant for LawConquer users because it supplies a named authority for Territorial scope of right to erasure in Privacy and Data Protection Law. The case can anchor a paragraph, support a rule statement, or provide a contrast point when another authority points the other way. Its practical value is strongest when the student links the holding to the material facts and then explains whether the present problem is analogous or distinguishable.
Related Cases
No related cases listed.
Exam Tips
In an exam, introduce Google LLC v Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what Google LLC v Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Territorial scope of right to erasure, then move quickly to analysis.
Revision Checklist
Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.
Problem Question Use
Use Google LLC v Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) in a problem question by matching the factual trigger to the new scenario. If the fact pattern aligns with CNIL fined Google for not delisting search results globally after a right to erasure request., apply the ratio and explain the likely result. If a crucial fact, jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs, distinguish the case and use it as a boundary rather than a controlling answer.