NT 1 & NT 2 v Google LLC

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment concerns two claims by businessmen, anonymised as NT1 and NT2, who seek orders against an internet search engine operator, referred to as Defendant, to remove links to third-party reports about their past criminal convictions. Both claimants were convicted many years ago of offences connected to their business activities. They contend that the search results are inaccurate or otherwise an unjustified interference with their privacy and data protection rights, seeking removal of links and compensation. The Defendant resists these claims, asserting legitimacy in continuing to return such search results.

NT1 was convicted in the late 1990s of a criminal conspiracy linked to a controversial property business. His conviction became "spent" years later under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. He requested removal of certain links from the Defendant’s search results starting in 2014, but the Defendant refused to remove most of them, leading to litigation.

NT2 pleaded guilty over ten years ago to conspiracy related to a business subject to environmental opposition and received a short custodial sentence. His conviction also became spent under the 1974 Act. He similarly requested removal of links to media reports and other publications, which the Defendant declined, resulting in this claim.

The cases were tried consecutively with the same legal representation, and anonymity was granted to the claimants to prevent further publicity of the information they sought to limit. Separate private judgments containing identifying details were prepared but are not public.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the claimants are entitled to have the links excluded from search results on grounds that the linked information is inaccurate or that continued listing constitutes an unjustified interference with their data protection and privacy rights.
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation for the continued listing of such links after their delisting requests.
3. Whether the claims constitute an abuse of process aimed at circumventing defamation law protections.
4. Whether the Defendant is entitled to rely on the Journalism Exemption under data protection law.
5. How to structure the legal analysis and balancing exercise mandated by the Court of Justice of the European Union’s decision in Google Spain.
6. Whether the tort of misuse of private information applies and how it interacts with data protection claims.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by outlining the complex legal framework governing the claims, including the European Convention on Human Rights, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, the Data Protection Directive and Act, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the key CJEU decision in Google Spain, which established the right to be forgotten as a qualified right to have personal data delisted from search engines.

The court analysed the facts of each claimant’s case in detail, considering the nature of their convictions, the passage of time, and the continuing relevance of the information. It distinguished between the public and private nature of the information, noting that convictions and related legal proceedings are public acts, but that with the passage of time spent convictions may engage privacy rights.

On the data protection claims, the court applied the six data protection principles, focusing particularly on the Fourth Principle concerning accuracy. The court found that the first claimant (NT1) failed to prove material inaccuracies in the complained-of publications, and that the Defendant’s processing complied with data protection requirements, including satisfying Schedule 3 Condition 5 (information made public by deliberate steps of the data subject).

The court rejected the Defendant’s reliance on the Journalism Exemption, concluding that the search engine’s processing is not undertaken solely for journalistic purposes but for commercial purposes distinct from journalism.

The court considered how to structure the balancing exercise mandated by Google Spain and concluded that the balancing of privacy and freedom of expression rights must be undertaken at the liability stage, applying the Working Party’s criteria flexibly and in light of the facts.

In applying Google Spain’s balancing test, the court found that NT1’s conviction and related information, though sensitive and historic, remains relevant due to his ongoing business activities and failure to accept guilt or show remorse. The court held that the public interest in access to this information outweighs NT1’s privacy rights, and that delisting was not justified.

Regarding misuse of private information, the court applied the two-stage test of reasonable expectation of privacy and balancing of rights. It found no misuse in NT1’s case.

In NT2’s case, the court found one publication to be inaccurate and ordered its delisting. The remainder of the delisting claim and the misuse claim succeeded, as the court found that the crime and punishment information had become out of date, irrelevant, and that NT2’s privacy rights outweighed the public interest in continued accessibility. However, no damages were awarded because the Defendant took reasonable care in complying with its obligations.

The court rejected the Defendant’s abuse of process argument in both cases, holding that it is legitimate for claimants to pursue causes of action arising from the facts, even if they overlap with defamation claims, especially given the novel legal context.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decisions are as follows:

NT1:

• The delisting claim is dismissed; the publications are not shown to be inaccurate in any material respect.
• The claim for misuse of private information fails.
• Claims for compensation or damages do not arise.

NT2:

• The delisting claim is upheld in respect of one inaccurate publication and otherwise succeeds.
• The claim for misuse of private information succeeds.
• No compensation or damages are awarded due to the Defendant’s reasonable care.

The direct effect of these decisions is that the Defendant is ordered to delist certain links relating to NT2 but not to NT1. No new legal precedent is established beyond the application of existing principles, and the decisions reflect a fact-sensitive balancing of privacy and freedom of expression rights in the context of spent convictions and internet search results.