Google Continues Fight Against `Right to be Forgotten'

to keep it that way. Four years ago, the European Union's top court rule that Google has to remove links to information about a person on request if it's outdated or irrelevant. Now Google is heading back to that court again in a case that could have worldwide implications because France's data privacy watchdog wants Google to remove links worldwide rather than justin the EU. Joining me from London is Ian Wilson, managing partner at Brett Wilson. Ian describe what

the right to be forgotten is? Um, Well, it's unhelpful

peraps because there's no absolute right to be forgotten. UM. What it is is essentially a um request that individuals can make and only related to individuals, not companies under European data protection law, that search results for their name and for their name only are delisted from Google search results or indeed any other company search results UM for specific U O L s. So it may be that someone was involved in a drink driving inctance or something

like that, and it's coming up number one on Google

searches for their name. It's called it's something of disproportionate effects on their career and all their personal life, and so they can ask Google to delist it from the results so it doesn't come up anymore, and Google will have to sort of play a judge and jury and just and balance that individual data protection rights against the wider public interests of people looking for information on someone on the public interest and then being able to find information.

So now France's watchdog not only find Google hundred and sixteen thousand dollars or a hundred thousand euros for failing to remove links from its global websites as well as its websites in the EU. What is France's argument before

the EUSE Top Court. Well, it's it's essentially that Google is processing the personal data and by that I mean any any information is biographical UM of those based in the EU, and by doing that, Google is UM falling under the under the definition of a data controller for the purpose of EU data law. That means the affect Google effective a giant database. Um and you're putting someone's name into and it's crunching it and spitting out results.

And that if it wants to do that in the EU or in respective citizens individuals living in the EU, it's got to compile with data protection law. Uh and and and it's not simply good enough to um defense it offenses around European results. It's it's it's it's global search results. That's essentially the French arguments. So apparently a collection of press, freedom, free speech, and civil rights groups

side with Google. What is Google's argument? Google's argument is that and then there is some logic to Google's argument that that it's not for one state, effectively one jurisdiction, to dictate what happens in another legal jurisdiction. UM. It goes a bit further this than this and says that if if if we start, um start censoring access from one country on the on the request of another country, this could be abused by despotic regimes around the world

that don't have the same democratic values. To say, the United Kingdom and the United States so it seems like, you know, privacy and free speech rights are clashing here and might that be might a court in a different country like the US rule differently and maybe prior prioritize free speech rather than privacy. So does that cause a

problem here? Absolutely? Yes, you know, I mean, I think at the heart of this is a clash of cultures that that we've um you know, working in media law, we've been waiting to see expects expecting some time since the interception of the Internet or certainly the Internet becoming

very popular. There's a lot of things that the British and the Americans having in common and common law background, but there's a stark digression when it comes to speech and freedom expression, free speech causing free In the US

the First Amendment free speech is constitutionally protected. Um. In England, it's it's there is there is a framework where we're subjects to the European Conventional Human rights that provide that has two competing rights, the rights freedom of expression, which unlike in America, isn't an absolute right and various things hate speech are actually criminalized in the UK, whereas there sometimes constitutionally protected in US. So we have that sorry, gone. Well,

so where do you think this will end up? I mean, you do have the General Data Protection Regulation which it's forcing companies around the world to follow EU laws because they want to do business there. What do you think will happen here? Well, I think ultimately, I mean the I mean it's going to go on to say that what we have a strong uh sort of developing concepts in the in Europe, the privacy law which has to be balanced against um freedom expression, free speech, and that's

not going to go away in the EU. And I mean what the EU a quite sort of we're busted. And we've seen it before when they've taken on Microsoft and other companies, whether it's been market dominant and ultimately, you know, the way forward in the Europe and beyond, it's been copied in other countries is is greater protection for for personal data and as you say, different countries trading with one another. Um, it's ultimately I think Google aren't if they want to trade in Europe, they are

going to have to comply with EU rulings. Now we won't know what happened, you know, the outcome of today's hearing until the new New year. Probably the judgment will be reserved. And there's two hearings sort of effectively two applications, one today, one which is much broader, which is probably not going to work. It's it doesn't take into account the Balancing Act. It suggests that any sensitive Burstal days to should be delisted. Um, that's not quite how it works.

You know. For instance, if you were a sex offender, you couldn't just demand the Google removed material. There would probably refuse quite rightly, not quite rightly to delist that where there's a public interest in people being aware that someone has a serious conviction like that. But the jurisdictional one, I don't think it's one that's going to go away. Today's decision is actually based on old law which is

no longer enforced. Oddly, we've got the gdp R. Now as you say that that that codifies the right to be forgotten, the fact goes service. So um, yeah, I think we shall see. Thank you how much. Ian. That's Ian Wilson. He's a managing partner at Brett Wilson. Over the past week, both President Donald Trump and his former lawyer Michael Cohen have filed court papers saying they would not try to enforce the deal for Stormy Daniels to remain quiet about a sexual encounter with Trump in exchange

for dollars. However, daniels lawyer Michael Avenati says the adult film star will not give up on her legal case. We're gonna continue to prosecute this case, and we're going to continue to try to seek the truth and disclose the truth to what happened here. Relating to the cover up to the American people. Joining me is Eric Larson,

Bloomberg News Legal reporter. Eric, this started with the demand for something like more than twenty million dollars and damages, months of attack by Trump against Daniels and her attorney. Tell us why this complete turnaround, Well, it depends on who you ask. Um. Mr Albanati believes that the turnaround is an attempt by Trump and his former lawyer Michael Cohen to avoid being deposed under oath in the case, which is really one of the ultimate goals that Aubanati

has been aiming toward here. Um, that would would be problematic essentially for any president in any case, and it's it's something that Albanati has said would be would reveal a lot of information about this dispute. Well, Albanati, as we know, has gotten a very public profile from this case. He's even exploring a run for president in Sorry, but can he stop the judge from throwing out the case if there's no controversy? You know it's Uh, it's a

really good question. And there's going to be a hearing on the four in Los Angeles Federal Court. UM, I'll be there. We're gonna find out what the judge has to say. Um. Aubanati has urged the judge to treat h this statement from Trump and from Cohen about not defending uh the agreement as essentially an emotion to dismiss the case, and he's urging the judge to not do that.

He says that if if it's a settlement that Trump wants, then he's going to have to go bits further in terms of offering a settlement of sorts, including admitting he does what Auvnandi wants is for Trump and going to admit that that payment violated campaign finance laws by trying to essentially influence the election. Uh. The agreement was from just a month before the election, So that's one of the overwriting desires in the case. Also they want their attorneys.

He's paid, and they want and an acknowledgement that the agreement was invalid and the illegal, not just a statement that they won't defend it. Well, is Trump saying that he made illegal campaign finance charges? Which seems unlikely? But is is that part of the suit, that is part

of the lawsuit. That's one of the claims, uh that Stormy Daniels has made, is that the the agreement was unenforceable and and void because for various reasons, because but also because it was illegal because there was a campaign finance violation. That's been one of their claims from Marks. But the judge could throw it out without requiring that from Trump or Cohen. I'd take it theoretically, Yes, Yeah, that's I assume that that is what Trump and Cohen

are are aiming for here. And um, the judge in this case, how has how how has the judge acted in prior uh points that Avnati has brought up in Cohen, Well, it's it's always hard to tell exactly what it uh which way judge is leaning in a case. They tend to uh give deference to whichever side is making sort of the most urgent case. Sometimes the early early in the litigation, Trump was able to get in order against

uh Stormy Daniels, preventing her from speaking about the case. Um. And for example, you know, that was a ruling in favor of Trump. But now Manati is claiming that that motion when it was originally filed, as well as the motion to stay the case, we're both based on essentially false information and that the Trump and Cohn were misleading the court by insisting that the agreement was valid in

order to get those rulings in their favor. So it's hard to say what the judge will think now that that President Trump and Cohen are both walking away from this deal that they were defending. Now they want to return of the hundred thirty thousand dollars. Is that based on state law? Uh? You know, that's a good question.

Not sure exactly which law that that is based on, but they they are saying that they want that money back, and I'm glad you mentioned that, because Abnati says they're not going to So that will be another matter for the judge. True, right. So there's still the defamation case in New York Federal Court against Trump for his statements against Daniels, and Avanati told CNN way back when that it wasn't by accident that they decided to file a

separate defamation suit. Does that face more legal barriers than this suit? Uh, that case was Actually it was transferred somewhat recently to the same federal court in Los Angeles where the lawsuit over the confidentiality agreement is being heard. And actually that that same case is before the same

judge and will be discussed at that hearing. I mentioned on September, President Trump has filed emotion to strike that complaint um, saying you know, it's a completely invalid and wants to get it thrown out before they even do any discovery uh in the case, So that that will be coming up as well. Um. And obviously that that case was filed by Stormy Daniels against Trump after he tweeted that she was a total con job when she said that she had been threatened in two thousand eleven

to keep quiet about that that alleged affair. Yeah, he's also tweeted other things about her. Now we often hear Avanatti on different television shows, radio shows talking about how he wants he's going to get to depose Trump. Why does he think that he'll get to depose Trump before or if the Special Council cannot depose him? Well, these are you know, the Special Council's investigation is on a totally different track this. You know, his civil lawsuits being

brought by a private individual. Um, there's there's no reason to assume that involved in uh, this big investigation involving Russia election meddling, that he would be in some way from from being deposed in the separate lawsuit. And I know that at extent that he doesn't certainly doesn't think that Mueller's investigation is on the impediments um, and that in fact, she believes that his litigation is a better route to try to get some of the answers out here.

He's probably looking at Paula Jones, the Paula Jones subpoena of President Clinton. Thanks so much, Eric, That's Eric Larson, Bloomberg News Legal reporter. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Basso. This is Bloomberg