What happens when outdated news reports keep damaging your reputation after charges are dropped
Being cleared of charges should mean the end of the matter but for many people, it isn’t. If news articles remain online without updates about the outcome, they can mislead readers and suggest guilt. This creates serious and lasting harm, especially in an age where employers, friends, and strangers routinely turn to Google for information.
Outdated news articles linked to false allegations
How a Google delisting request helped clear his name
A right to amend unfair news article where charges were dropped
Understanding your rights under the right to be forgotten and GDPR
Can you remove a news article from Google if charges were dropped
Lawyers’ thoughts about the case
Outdated news articles linked to false allegations
Our client, whom we’ll call Liam, was arrested in 2020 on suspicion of attempting to secretly film someone in a public toilet. He consistently denied the accusations, explaining that it was a misunderstanding. Despite there being no evidence, the police proceeded to charge him. However, at the very first hearing, the prosecution offered no evidence to support the allegations and the charges were subsequently dropped.
Despite this outcome, his name and photo appeared in two national newspapers, the Sunday World and Belfast Telegraph. The reports made no mention of the case being dropped, creating a misleading narrative that suggested guilt.
For Liam, the consequences were life-changing. He lost a high-paying job in Germany after a colleague discovered the article. He and his father were later assaulted in an incident connected to the reports. His family in Scotland received serious threats, including a threat to burn down his mother’s home. The false allegations had left a digital shadow he couldn’t escape.
How a Google delisting request helped clear his name
Liam’s dream was to emigrate to Australia and work in the mining sector, but with the articles showing up in search engine results, he feared that job applications and visa processing would turn up damaging and misleading information. We started with a Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) request to Google, supported by the court dismissal document, evidence of job loss, and proof of threats and assault.
We referenced ZXC v Bloomberg [2022] UKSC 5, where the Supreme Court ruled that someone under criminal investigation has a reasonable expectation of privacy. In Liam’s case, he had been charged but the charges were dropped before any evidence was ever served. We argued that for Google’s purposes, the reputational harm was the same.
Google accepted our argument and delisted the articles from all name-based searches in the UK and EU, effectively removing them from visibility.
A right to amend unfair news article where charges were dropped
Next, we contacted the publishers directly. We submitted a GDPR notice asserting that the continued processing of Liam’s personal data was unlawful and harmful. The articles failed to reflect the truth and were causing serious personal consequences.
While the publishers were within their rights to report on the original charges, they also had a journalistic duty to update the story with significant facts such as the dismissal of the case. Failing to do so left the article incomplete and misleading. We reminded the publishers of their responsibility to provide a fair and accurate account, including offering a right of reply or amending the article where appropriate.
In this case, that meant clearly stating that the charges had been dismissed. The publishers agreed to include that update, but refused to delete the articles or add no-index tags. They cited the journalism exemption under the Data Protection Act 2018, which allows news outlets to retain content in the public interest.
Whilst this was not an ideal outcome, but it left Liam in a far better situation than before, as the articles could no longer be found through Google searches.
Understanding your rights under the right to be forgotten and GDPR
Under Article 17 of the UK GDPR, you can request the removal of personal data if it’s misleading, harmful, or no longer necessary. This includes requesting delisting of search results.
Publishers, however, can resist full removal by invoking the journalism exemption. This creates a legal balancing test between public interest in publication and the individual’s right to privacy. In principle, where a person has been charged, the press has the right to name them, and this can complicate right to be forgotten claims.
This often provides publishers with a potential legal shield for retaining the article, even if the charges are later dismissed. While this position may benefit publishers, it does not necessarily apply to search engines. We argued that the distinction between being investigated and being charged but ultimately cleared- especially without any evidence being served- should not affect the right to be forgotten in practice.
In both scenarios, individuals can suffer the same reputational harm. Making this argument was difficult, as it challenged the prevailing legal interpretation, but ultimately, we succeeded. Google agreed to delist the articles, recognising the real-world impact on our client and the unfairness of continued online association with disproven accusations.
Can you remove a news article from Google if charges were dropped
If the information is outdated, incomplete, or unfair, you may be entitled to have links removed from search engines. However, there is no automatic right to removal. Each case is different, and whether your application will succeed depends on the specific personal circumstances involved, as well as any ongoing public interest in the story.
You may need to argue your case strongly and support it with compelling documentation to show the harm being caused. Incomplete information often refers to articles that report the accusation or charge but fail to mention the eventual outcome.
This leaves readers with only part of the story and can lead them to draw their own conclusions- often ones that lack sympathy for the accused. While removing the article from the news site itself is more difficult, the Right to be Forgotten gives you real power to reduce visibility and protect your reputation when the legal balance tips in your favour.
Lawyers’ thoughts about the case
This case presented a significant challenge, both legally and emotionally. Despite the charges being dismissed in court, the articles continued to affect Liam’s life, exemplifying how digital reputational damage can persist long after legal matters are resolved.
One of the key legal hurdles was distinguishing Liam’s case from precedents like ZXC v Bloomberg, where the individual had only been under investigation. Liam had been formally charged, which generally allows publishers to name a defendant. That distinction could have undermined our argument, particularly when it came to press reporting.
However, we successfully argued that for Google’s purposes, the impact of being named in incomplete reports was just as harmful as being reported while under investigation, especially where the case was dropped and no evidence had ever been served. This was not a straightforward argument to make, and it tested the boundaries of current legal interpretations.
It was through persistence, precise legal reasoning, and a strong evidential base that we achieved delisting. The outcome, while not ideal due to the articles remaining online, dramatically reduced their visibility and gave our client a clean slate in online search results. It was a substantial and meaningful victory in the evolving landscape of digital privacy and online rehabilitation.
