It held that an Internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal information which appears on web pages published by third parties.

Grounds for removal include cases where the search result(s) "appear to be inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant or excessive in the light of the time that had elapsed.

In 1998 the Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia published two announcements in its printed edition regarding the forced sale of properties arising from social security debts.

In November 2009, Costeja contacted the newspaper to complain that when his name was entered in the Google search engine it led to the announcements.

Their appeal was based on:[12] The Audiencia Nacional joined the actions and stayed the proceedings pending a preliminary ruling from the CJEU on a number of questions regarding the interpretation of the Data Protection Directive.

[12] Written proceedings followed by an oral hearing were held on 26 February 2013, at which, besides the parties, the governments of Austria, Greece, Italy, Spain and Poland and the European Commission gave their opinion.

[14]: B 76–83 In the event that the court did not agree with his finding that Google was not a data controller, the advocate general considered the third set of questions relating to a right to be forgotten.

He held that the rights of freedom of information and expression took precedence over any such right to erasure, and urged the court not to allow case-by-case resolution of such conflicts as that would likely lead to the "automatic withdrawal of links to any objected contents or to an unmanageable number of requests handled by the most popular and important Internet search engine service providers.

"[14]: 133 The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that an Internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal data which appear on web pages published by third parties, upholding a right of erasure.

The Court stressed that Internet search engines profile individuals in modern society in an ubiquitous manner, in a way that could not otherwise have been obtained formerly save only with the greatest difficulty.

[5]: 80  The data subject's rights must therefore in general override "as a rule, not only the economic interest of the operator of the search engine but also the interest of the general public in finding that information upon a search relating to the data subject's name", but that would not be the case if the role played by the data subject in public life is such "that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in question".

[17][18] On 31 May 2014, the first day of the service, Google received over 12,000 requests from people asking the company to remove certain links about them from its search results.

Facebook is an extremely valuable resource for freedom of expression and information sharing, but most of the "personal data" published there be it banal or wacky would not avail itself of any specific public interest defence.

"Privacy by default" will encourage politicians, celebrities and other public figures to put their lawyers on track when they find inconvenient information online.