An old news story found by typing your name can continue to affect your life much longer than the event it describes. It may concern a closed proceeding, outdated information, an inaccurate article, or a true fact that, after many years, comes back into the spotlight without explaining how it concluded. The right to be forgotten serves precisely to request that the dissemination of personal data be re-examined, but it does not automatically turn every unwelcome news story into content to be deleted.

I will explain the difference between article deletion, rectification, and de-listing from search engines; we will also look at when a request can be rejected for reasons of public interest and why compensation does not automatically follow the presence of news online. Understanding which outcome to request is the first step to avoid turning to the wrong party and to base your claim on facts that truly matter.

The Right to be Forgotten is Not the Same as Deleting Every News Story

The right to be forgotten is a right to have personal data erased under precise conditions. Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation, the GDPR, allows individuals to ask the data controller to erase data that is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was collected, processed without a lawful basis, or required to be deleted for a legal obligation. The same article also provides for the data subject's right to object, unless compelling legitimate grounds override the processing. The current text can be consulted in Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Articles 12, 16, 17, 77, 79 and 82.

Time elapsed matters, but it is not enough on its own. A very dated news story may lose relevance for a search conducted with your name, especially if it concerns an isolated incident that is no longer current. However, the age of publication must be read alongside its content, its informative function, the public role potentially held by the data subject, and the public's interest in still knowing that fact. A request based solely on the distress caused by the news thus risks missing the decisive point.

Freedom of information sets a concrete limit. The GDPR excludes erasure to the extent that processing is necessary for exercising the right to freedom of expression and information. This does not mean a journalistic article can never be challenged; it means balancing the right to data protection against the current informative usefulness of the publication. The issue to clarify is not only "this news harms me," but also why its availability today is no longer proportional to the informative purpose.

Website Removal, Rectification, and De-listing Are Different Remedies

Removing a page and de-listing it produce different effects. Removal intervenes at the source: the website operator deletes the article, page, or personal data contained within it. De-listing, on the other hand, concerns the search engine: it prevents a link from appearing among the results obtained by searching for a person's name. The article can therefore remain published and accessible through other searches, direct links, or the site's archives.

If the information is inaccurate, rectification may be more appropriate than removal. Article 16 of the GDPR recognizes the right to obtain the correction of inaccurate personal data and the completion of incomplete data. This remedy is important, for example, when an article omits an acquittal, a dismissal, or another essential development of the initially narrated fact. A well-formulated request must distinguish between data inaccuracy, incompleteness of context, and loss of timeliness of the news.

The search engine and the publisher have distinct responsibilities. The Court of Justice of the European Union has clarified that the processing carried out by the search engine operator is additional to that of the page publisher: therefore, a de-listing request requires a specific balancing test. The Court also specified that, for purportedly inaccurate news, it is not always necessary to first obtain a ruling against the site that published it. The principle is illustrated in the Court of Justice judgment of 8 December 2022, Case C-460/20.

What Facts Affect a Request Regarding an Old News Story

The current relevance of the news is the heart of the assessment. A fact may have been lawfully published when it occurred and, years later, no longer justify anyone finding it immediately by searching for the person's name. This does not depend on a uniform deadline for everyone. What matters is whether the episode retains a concrete public interest, whether it still has current consequences, and whether the link between the person and the fact remains significant.

The position of the person involved can change the balance. A public function, an exposed role in economic life, or current involvement in the same affair may keep the informative interest higher. Conversely, a person without public exposure, linked to a remote and now concluded episode, may have stronger reasons to request at least name-based de-listing. However, it is incorrect to assume that notoriety alone eliminates all protection of private life.

Content and its updating are essential. A headline suggesting liability that was never established, an article failing to report the favorable conclusion of proceedings, or a page attributing untrue facts pose different problems compared to the mere online persistence of accurate news. In these cases, the full text of the article, the publication date, available updates, and documents proving the error or subsequent development assume decisive value.

How to Submit a Useful and Understandable Request

The request must indicate precisely what you want to achieve. It is useful to specify whether you are asking for page removal, the anonymization of your name, the completion of the article, rectification, or de-listing from a search conducted with your name. A generic formula like "delete everything from the internet" does not distinguish between the parties involved and does not clarify which data processing is being challenged.

URLs and verifiable facts make the request reviewable. You must provide the exact addresses of the pages and, for de-listing, clarify which name-based search makes the result appear. The request must then set out the relevant reason: inaccurate data, omitted conclusion of the case, lack of timeliness, disproportionate name-based availability, or another circumstance provided for by the regulations. If the point is inaccuracy, objective elements must be provided to allow the recipient to evaluate it.

The controller must generally respond within one month. Article 12 GDPR requires informing the data subject of the action taken without undue delay and, at the latest, within one month of receiving the request. The deadline may be extended by two months due to the complexity or number of requests, but the extension and its reasons must be communicated within the first month. This rule concerns the response to the request; it does not promise that the requested outcome will always be granted.

Keeping a copy of the request avoids subsequent misunderstandings. It is prudent to keep the sent text, proof of receipt, copies of the contested pages, and documents supporting the claim. There is no need to accumulate irrelevant material: what matters is being able to show what content was available, why you are requesting its review, and what response was provided. If the data has been made public, Article 17 GDPR also provides, within the limits of reasonable steps and available technology, for measures to inform other controllers processing links or copies of the data about the erasure request.

Complaint, Judicial Action, and Compensation

Refusal or silence does not necessarily close the avenue of protection. The GDPR recognizes the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority if you consider that the processing infringes the Regulation, and preserves the right to an effective judicial remedy. In Italy, disputes concerning the application of personal data protection rules and those concerning compensation pursuant to Article 82 GDPR are assigned to the ordinary judicial authority by Article 152 of the Personal Data Protection Code, available on Normattiva.

Compensation requires more than just a privacy violation. Article 82 GDPR allows claims for compensation for material or non-material damage caused by a violation of the Regulation. It is therefore necessary to distinguish three elements: a violation of personal data rules, damage actually suffered, and a causal link between that violation and the damage. The mere online presence of content, or the sole finding of a violation, does not automatically determine a compensation amount.

The damage must be linked to concrete consequences. Financial loss may concern demonstrable pecuniary loss; non-material damage, on the other hand, can affect reputation, personal peace of mind, or social life. There is no standard sum because every claim requires linking the damage to the contested conduct and documenting its consequences. European case law reiterates that damage, violation, and causal link are cumulative conditions, as recalled by the Court of Justice judgment in Case C-655/23.

A privacy claim and a potential challenge to the article are not the same thing. If a publication contains defamatory expressions, false accusations, or other profiles exceeding personal data processing, additional protections beyond the right to be forgotten may come into play. However, it is best not to confuse the grounds of the request: name-based de-listing, rectification, removal, and compensation may have different legal bases. The choice depends on the content, the recipient of the request, and the concrete effect you wish to achieve.

When News Concerns Favorable Criminal Proceedings

For certain criminal matters, express protection regarding de-listing exists. Article 64-ter of the implementing provisions of the code of criminal procedure concerns individuals who are the recipients of an acquittal judgment, a decision of no grounds to proceed, or a dismissal order. In such cases, it can be requested that the indexing of personal data contained in the measure be barred or that online de-listing be arranged, always within the limits of Article 17 GDPR.

The measure alone does not order the deletion of all news. The judge's registry places an annotation on the measure, which constitutes grounds for asking general search engines to suppress the indexing of content relating to the proceedings in searches conducted with the data subject's name. It is therefore a tool aimed primarily at name-based availability, not an automatic deletion of articles from the sites that published them. The current text of Article 64-ter of the implementing provisions of the code of criminal procedure clarifies this function.

The conclusion of the proceedings must be made visible in the correct manner. If the initial news continues to be published without any reference to the dismissal or acquittal, it may also be necessary to evaluate rectification or updating with the publisher. If, on the other hand, the main problem is that a search with your name still brings up dated articles, de-listing may be the remedy closest to the objective. The presence of the annotation does not eliminate the necessary balancing test required by the GDPR, but it offers a specific legal element to the request.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I delete true but very old news from the internet?

You can request its review, but there is no automatic deletion. True and dated news may justify de-listing if it has lost timeliness and no overriding public interest remains to find it by searching your name. Removal from the site is a different outcome and may encounter more significant limits linked to freedom of information and the function of the archive.

Does de-listing remove the article from the newspaper's website?

No, as a rule, it only prevents name searches on the relevant engine. The page may remain in the publisher's archive and can be reached via different keywords, direct links, or searches that do not use your name. If you want to intervene on the text or availability of the article, the request must also be evaluated against the party publishing it.

Within what timeframe must I receive a response to the request?

The GDPR indicates a one-month period to inform you of the action taken. The period runs from receipt of the request and may be extended by another two months only for complex or numerous requests. In the event of an extension, the recipient must communicate it to you within the first month, explaining the reasons for the delay.

Can I obtain compensation just because the news caused me embarrassment?

Embarrassment alone does not make compensation automatic. Under Article 82 GDPR, a violation of the regulations, actual material or non-material damage, and a causal link between the two are required. The claim must therefore clarify what consequences the unlawful processing produced: it is not sufficient to abstractly invoke annoyance over the persistence of the news online.

Does a dismissal allow me to make all articles about the investigations disappear?

A dismissal does not automatically delete all articles. However, through the annotation provided for by Article 64-ter of the implementing provisions of the code of criminal procedure, it can allow you to request the de-listing of content relating to the proceedings regarding searches conducted with your name. As for the text of the article, updates, rectification, removal, and other potential remedies remain to be distinguished.