Dealing with misleading online news coverage after a domestic dispute
How we used the right to be forgotten to remove outdated online content
Strategic legal steps to remove defamatory search results from Google
Successful removal of defamatory articles from search engine results
Lawyer's thoughts about the case
Need help removing online content
Dealing with misleading online news coverage after a domestic dispute
Our clients, whom we’ll refer to as Marco and Lucia, are both respected university professors in the UK. Several years ago, they were involved in a personal dispute that unfortunately escalated when Lucia called the police in distress.
Although no evidence of assault was ever presented and the charges were eventually dropped, the media sensationalised the story. The court issued a restraining order against Marco- not because it found him guilty of any wrongdoing, but because it recommended a legal arrangement to resolve the matter quickly and without trial.
The court used an older procedure known as a 'not guilty bind over', which allows a person to avoid admitting guilt while agreeing to keep the peace for a certain period. This mechanism is typically used when prosecutors decide not to pursue a trial- often due to insufficient evidence or because it's not in the public interest. The bind over acts as a civil contract between the accused and the court. If the person breaches the terms, they won’t be prosecuted for the original offence, but may face proceedings for breaking the agreement itself.
This arrangement allows both parties to avoid the strain of a full criminal trial while bringing closure without any conviction or admission of guilt. However, media outlets misrepresented this legal outcome. Unbeknown to Marco, a journalist attending the hearing turned it into a tabloid headline, exaggerating events and lacing the story with xenophobic undertones.
The articles painted Marco as a violent husband, ignoring the absence of evidence, the later reconciliation with his wife, and the fact that the court later rescinded the restraining order. Although Marco and Lucia managed to get Google to delist some of the links, other nearly identical articles continued to appear in search results when their names were entered online.
How we used the right to be forgotten to remove outdated online content
The couple contacted us after several failed attempts to have these remaining articles removed. They were especially concerned about the impact on their 12-year-old son and the damage to their reputations in academia.
We advised them that the best approach was to make applications under the Right to Be Forgotten provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the UK Data Protection Act 2018. These laws give individuals the right to request the removal of personal information that is outdated, irrelevant, or no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was published.
In this case, the search engines were indexing old and misleading content that no longer reflected the current reality of Marco and Lucia's lives. The couple had reconciled, the legal issues had been resolved, and the material was causing ongoing harm.
We also prepared a strategy to potentially escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if the search engines failed to comply. The ICO has the authority to order the removal of search results when it finds a breach of data protection law.
Strategic legal steps to remove defamatory search results from Google
Our legal team carefully drafted formal delisting requests to Google, Bing, and Yahoo. To preserve the gains they had already made (such as the unexpected global delisting by Google), we advised that the applications be submitted by Lucia in her personal capacity rather than through our law firm’s letterhead.
This cautious approach helped prevent any unintended review that could reinstate previously removed results. Each submission included detailed explanations of the inaccuracies in the articles, the disproportionality of their continued online presence, and the tangible harm being caused. We also incorporated impact statements from both Marco and Lucia, highlighting the effects on their family, mental health, and professional standing.
We made it clear in our communications that the search engines had a legal duty to act, and we ensured they understood their obligations under data protection law. When dealing with foreign publishers, we warned them that failure to cooperate could expose their entire platforms to intervention by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO has wide-ranging powers to pursue non-UK-based internet platforms and can impose substantial fines for breaches of UK data protection laws.
Successful removal of defamatory articles from search engine results
The legal arguments were successful. All the articles were delisted by the major search engines, and searches under the names of both Marco and Lucia now yield no results linking them to the incident. Their digital footprint has been effectively cleaned, and they have resumed their academic careers without the looming shadow of damaging online content. Most of all, they felt relieved that their son had been spared the exposure- and with him, his friends and their parents who might have seen the baseless stories.
Marco and Lucia were extremely grateful for the outcome and the care with which we handled their sensitive matter. In their own words: "We are very happy to have chosen Cohen Davis Solicitors to deal with defamatory articles about our family that appeared in the tabloids. The lawyers at Cohen Davis Solicitors are very professional, they act swiftly and efficiently. We are very satisfied with the outcome, and recommend Cohen Davis Solicitors wholeheartedly."
Lawyer's thoughts about the case
This case stands out not only for its legal complexity, but also for its broader significance in today’s online environment. Too often, people assume that once something appears on the internet, especially when published by mainstream media, it becomes permanent and untouchable.
This belief is mistaken. UK and EU laws provide strong protections, especially when personal information is outdated, misleading, or disproportionately harmful. One of the most valuable lessons from this case is that the Right to Be Forgotten can apply even in situations that don’t involve a full acquittal or a complete clearing of one's name. Legal remedies remain viable where the content is no longer relevant or necessary, and where its continued presence online causes unfair harm.
Even something like a 'not guilty bind over', which involves no conviction, can give rise to a valid request for delisting. Another insight is the importance of strategy. People often believe they cannot do anything about foreign websites, but that is not true.
In this case, we achieved removals even from international platforms by using a smart, coordinated legal approach. We warned publishers that ignoring UK privacy laws could lead to their entire platforms being scrutinised by the ICO, which holds powers to investigate and fine entities outside the UK.
It’s also a reminder of the importance of precision. Many clients contact search engines or publishers directly without success. In contrast, legally supported, carefully framed submissions, grounded in evidence and a clear legal narrative. can bring about quick and lasting results.
Above all, we encourage people to challenge the assumption that the online space is beyond the reach of the law. You do not have to tolerate unfair digital exposure. Legal tools exist, and with the right guidance, you can take back control of your online presence.
Need help removing online content
If you or someone you know is struggling with misleading online content or defamation, contact us today. We’ll help you understand your rights and create a bespoke strategy to protect your reputation and your peace of mind.
