Order No. 9068 of 2024: Removal of Content from Search Engines and Limits of Journalistic Criticism

The recent Order No. 9068 of April 5, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addressed a sensitive and current issue: the processing of personal data in the journalistic field. In particular, the Court examined the case involving R. (LEPRI F.) and C. (NICOLOSI S.), establishing important principles regarding the removal of content from search engines when it exceeds the limits of journalistic criticism.

The Legal Context of the Ruling

The Court rejected the appeal filed by the appellant, confirming the decision of the Court of Appeal of Catania of May 26, 2022. The headnote of the ruling states that the person responsible for a television product, deemed to exceed the limits of criticism, is obliged to demonstrate that they have taken all necessary initiatives to inform third parties about the unlawful processing of data, particularly when it infringes upon the dignity of the individuals involved.

Processing of personal data - Television product exceeding the limits of journalistic criticism - Order for removal from search engines - Obligation to act requiring third-party cooperation - Content of the activity incumbent upon the responsible party - Obligation of means, not of result. In the context of personal data processing, the party responsible for a television product that exceeds the limits of journalistic criticism, ordered to remove the content from search engines, must demonstrate that they have implemented every initiative aimed at informing third parties, who have appropriated it, about the unlawful dissemination of the footage, which has already been negatively assessed in terms of offense to the dignity of the individuals involved, as well as that they have taken steps to obtain the cessation of the unlawful processing, involving an obligation of means and not of result.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

This verdict has several important implications for those responsible for media content, particularly for audiovisual content producers. They are required to:

• Verify the lawfulness of published content, especially concerning the dignity of the individuals involved.
• Take action to inform third parties who have used the content unlawfully.
• Demonstrate that they have undertaken appropriate actions to remove the content from search engines, thereby respecting the rights of the interested parties.

The Court emphasized that the obligation to act is one of means, not of result, meaning that it is not sufficient to achieve the removal of content, but it is necessary to demonstrate that everything possible has been done to reach this objective.

Conclusions

Order No. 9068 of 2024 represents a significant step forward in the protection of individual rights in the media sphere. It reiterates the need for a balance between freedom of reporting and respect for human dignity, highlighting the importance of adequate personal data management. In an era where the dissemination of online content is rapid and often uncontrolled, this ruling offers a clear warning to content producers and distributors: legal responsibility exists and must be respected.