How to remove news articles from Google after being found not guilty
When Oliver Thompson (name changed) contacted us, he had almost lost hope. Two years after being acquitted of a serious allegation, Google searches for his name still showed outdated, damaging news reports from major outlets that covered his trial but never updated their stories to reflect his not-guilty verdict.
Why not guilty verdicts are often ignored by the media
The impact of outdated criminal allegations in search results
Right to be forgotten to remove articles from Google
Why Google keeps rejecting Right to be Forgotten requests after acquittal
How our legal team successfully removed the articles from Google
Lawyers’ thoughts about the case
Why not guilty verdicts are often ignored by the media
One of the most frustrating realities for people who have been found not guilty is that the media rarely reports on the outcome. News outlets are often quick to cover the drama of an arrest or trial, but when someone is acquitted or cleared, those same outlets go silent.
The result is a very one-sided digital record. In Oliver’s case, there were several widely read articles about the allegations and the early stages of the legal process. Yet not a single news platform reported on his not guilty verdict. This left his name attached online to serious accusations with no mention of the fact he had been acquitted.
This is a major problem. For anyone searching online, it creates a false narrative. The articles still dominate search results for years and give the impression that the person is either still under investigation or was convicted when neither is true.
Search engines, like Google, index this outdated information and make it the primary source that people see, often for many years. The lack of follow-up reporting after not guilty verdicts means that internet users are left with only a snapshot of the legal process- often the most damaging and incomplete part.
That snapshot doesn’t reflect the outcome, and for many people like Oliver, it leaves them permanently connected to a version of events that the court ultimately rejected. This kind of incomplete and outdated reporting causes lasting harm. It affects jobs, relationships, mental health, and a person’s ability to move on.
It also reinforces why the Right to be Forgotten is such a vital legal remedy for people whose reputations have been unfairly harmed by digital records that fail to reflect the full truth.
The impact of outdated criminal allegations in search results
In Oliver’s case, the allegations had related to a criminal charge of rape. He was eventually acquitted after two trials. The jury had failed to reach a verdict in the first, and in the second, the prosecution chose not to offer any further evidence. His name was cleared everywhere but the digital world.
Several articles from mainstream media outlets and blogs still painted a picture of guilt. They included details from the original allegations and quoted courtroom testimony, but made no mention of the acquittal. Worse still, Oliver’s full name and location were published, meaning any search of his name brought up these alarming and misleading stories.
Professionally, this was catastrophic. He had been terminated from his new job during his probation period, purely due to concerns raised by management over the online reports. Personally, he and his wife struggled with the ongoing stress and shame, especially as they were building their family.
Right to be forgotten to remove articles from Google
Yes- but it is rarely straightforward.
Oliver had tried countless times to request that Google delist the articles tied to his name. He submitted Right to be Forgotten applications through Google’s online portal, followed their process to the letter, and even attached court documents proving he had been acquitted. Each time, he received a near-identical reply: that the articles would remain in search results as they were deemed to be in the public interest.
Despite this, Oliver never truly gave up. One evening, after yet another rejection from Google, he searched the internet one more time in the hope of finding someone who might actually be able to help. That’s when he came across our firm. He read through our case studies and decided to contact us.
While we offered no guarantees, we told him that from a legal perspective, he had a strong enough case for the links to be delisted. The law was on his side.
We explained that under UK and EU law, individuals have what’s known as the Right to be Forgotten. This right stems from the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018). It allows individuals to request that search engines like Google delist links to information that is outdated, irrelevant, or otherwise infringes upon their right to privacy.
In Oliver’s case, this included articles that related to a criminal matter which had concluded in his favour and where the allegations no longer reflected reality.
Why Google keeps rejecting Right to be Forgotten requests after acquittal
A common question we hear from clients is: why does Google reject Right to be Forgotten requests even after someone is found not guilty? The answer lies in how Google interprets 'public interest' and journalistic content. Google often resists delisting content that comes from credible news sources, particularly when it involves criminal charges, because it views this type of reporting as a record of public events.
Even when a person has been cleared in court, Google may argue that the information still serves the public by documenting the legal process. In Oliver’s case, this meant that every time he submitted a new application, Google came back with the same response: that the articles were part of a broader public debate and therefore should remain searchable.
The fact that the original articles failed to mention his acquittal made the rejection even more painful. While it is difficult to prove bias, our experience handling hundreds of similar cases suggests that Google applies its own unwritten standard when it comes to cases involving sexual offences.
In such instances, Google seems especially reluctant to delist material- even when the person has been found not guilty. In Oliver’s case, it appeared that Google simply didn’t care about the acquittal. The tone and consistency of their responses suggested that, in their eyes, he was still guilty, regardless of the verdict.
This added a layer of injustice that was deeply troubling. What people often don’t realise is that Google does not have a duty to balance public interest with fairness on its own and it is up to the applicant to make that case in legal terms.
That is where our firm came in. By translating Oliver’s situation into the language of GDPR and legal precedent, we were able to challenge Google’s assumptions and ultimately succeed where automated forms had failed.
How our legal team successfully removed the articles from Google
Before we could even begin building our main legal argument, our priority was to understand why Google had kept rejecting his applications. We reviewed the automated rejection messages and analysed the rationale they used, often citing vague notions of public interest.
It was crucial to isolate the specific basis for their refusal, because Google cannot simply switch its justification later in the process. Once a reason is given and properly challenged with indisputable legal and factual evidence, they are left with little room to manoeuvre.
With that in mind, we began gathering everything we would need to make an irrefutable case. This included certified court documents showing Oliver's acquittal, impact statements explaining how the articles had harmed his life, and character references attesting to his reputation within the community. Every piece of evidence was carefully compiled to address the flaws in Google's position directly.
Initially, our communications were met with silence. We sent follow-up emails, resubmitted the case, and continued pressing for a response. When one came, it was the same generic reply as before. That was when we escalated.
We issued a formal GDPR notice that laid out Google's legal obligations and pinpointed their failures in responding to the delisting request. We demonstrated that continued indexing of the articles was no longer lawful, necessary or proportionate. Each new submission was more robust than the last. We anticipated Google’s possible counterpoints and pre-emptively addressed them.
Our persistence paid off. After months of rigorous correspondence, legal pressure and clear, step-by-step legal arguments, Google agreed to delist every article that appeared in search results under Oliver’s name. Although the articles remained live on their respective sites, they no longer haunted him in Google’s search results.
For Oliver, it meant finally being able to move forward without digital shadows dragging behind him. Positive outcome: restoring our client’s online reputation When we told Oliver that his name no longer brought up the damaging news reports, he was overwhelmed. Years of anxiety, rejection, and worry about his future came to an end with a few words: "The articles have been removed." He later told us that this was the first time in years he felt able to look forward, rather than back.
Lawyers’ thoughts about the case
What made this case particularly challenging was the level of detail and reach of the online articles. They were widely indexed across multiple domains, including mainstream news sites and smaller blogs.
The case also attracted significant media attention at the time, meaning that the client's name had become unusually tied to the allegations in digital memory. We had to tackle Google’s resistance head-on by combining a comprehensive legal strategy with persistence and detailed supporting evidence. We took care to humanise our client in the legal argument, highlighting how the continued presence of these articles online was not just inconvenient -it was life-altering.
In our view, this case represents the very essence of the Right to be Forgotten, not as a way to rewrite history, but as a means to reflect reality fairly and to give individuals a true second chance.
