The little-known secret that can make your right to be forgotten application work
If you have ever submitted a Right to Be Forgotten request to Google and received a rejection, you are far from alone. Many people carefully complete the removal form, explain their situation, and genuinely believe their case is reasonable. Yet the response comes back the same: the request is refused.
Why so many right to be forgotten requests fail
The principle behind successful removals
When online information becomes disproportionate
How successful requests approach the argument differently
Why proportionality is often the turning point
Finding the right approach after a rejected right to be forgotten request
Why so many right to be forgotten requests fail
At that point, most people assume the problem with their right to be forgotten request must be that the information which they try to remove from internet searches is true. They believe that unless an article is false or defamatory, there is little that can be done. This is where many requests go wrong.
The reality is that successful Right to Be Forgotten claims are rarely won simply by arguing that something is incorrect. In fact, many successful removals involve information that is entirely accurate. The real key lies in something most applicants never address properly. The secret is proportionality. Understanding how proportionality works is often the difference between repeated rejection and a successful removal.
Most people who submit a removal request focus on explaining what happened in the past. They try to prove the article is unfair, or they argue that the story should never have been published in the first place. Sometimes they simply explain how upsetting it is to see the article appear when their name is searched online.
While these feelings are understandable, this approach often misses the legal test that search engines are actually applying. Search engines are not primarily asking whether the information is true or false. Instead, they are asking a different question entirely.
They want to know whether it is still fair and justified for this information to appear prominently when someone searches your name today. This shift in perspective is subtle, but it changes everything. When people fail to address this question directly, their requests are frequently rejected.
The principle behind successful removals
The concept that sits at the centre of Right to Be Forgotten law is proportionality. In simple terms, proportionality means balancing two competing rights. On one side is the individual’s right to privacy, dignity and the ability to move forward with their life. On the other side is the public’s right to access information. Search engines must weigh these two interests carefully.
If the public interest in the information still outweighs the impact on the individual, the content may remain visible. If the balance has shifted in favour of the individual, the search result may be removed. This balancing exercise is the hidden mechanism behind successful Right to Be Forgotten requests.
It is also the element that many rejected applications fail to address properly. To understand proportionality, it helps to focus on the specific question that search engines are asking during their assessment. The question becomes whether the continued prominence of that information remains fair and justified in the present day. They are not looking at the historical event in isolation. Instead, they examine the current effect of that information appearing in search results today.
This means the most persuasive requests focus on what has changed since the information was first published. Has significant time passed? Does the article still reflect who the person is today? Is the prominence of the story creating a misleading or disproportionate impression? These are the issues that often determine whether a request succeeds or fails.
When online information becomes disproportionate
In practice, many Right to Be Forgotten cases succeed because the way information appears online creates an imbalance. A common example involves individuals who had only a minor role in an event, yet their name appears prominently in headlines or search results. Even if their involvement was limited or they were later cleared, the article can create a distorted impression of serious wrongdoing.
Another situation arises when a relatively small incident receives a surprising amount of online attention. What may have been a minor matter at the time can become magnified by the number of articles or websites that report it. Years later, that cluster of articles may dominate search results and create a misleading picture of the person involved.
Time itself is also one of the most powerful factors. Someone may have made a mistake fifteen or twenty years ago, but has since built a career, established a family and moved forward in life. Yet a single outdated article continues to appear at the top of search results whenever their name is searched.
In these cases, the issue is not whether the story was accurate when it was written. The real question is whether it is still proportionate for that story to define the person’s online identity today.
Technology can also contribute to this imbalance. Before the internet, a newspaper article would gradually disappear into archives and become difficult to find. Today, search engines can keep that same story permanently visible. The law recognises that this technological permanence can sometimes create unfair outcomes.
How successful requests approach the argument differently
People who succeed with a Right to Be Forgotten request typically frame their case around the shift in balance between privacy and public interest. Instead of focusing entirely on the past event, they demonstrate how circumstances have changed.
They may explain how long ago the event occurred and how their life has evolved since then. They may show that the article exaggerates their role or creates a misleading impression. They may demonstrate the real-world harm caused by the continued prominence of the search result.
What matters most is presenting a clear explanation of why the continued visibility of the information is now disproportionate. This is where legal experience often becomes important. Understanding how to frame the argument around proportionality rather than simply appealing for sympathy can make a significant difference.
Why proportionality is often the turning point
The principle of proportionality recognises something important about human life. People are not static. They grow, develop and change over time. The law acknowledges that while the public may have had a legitimate interest in an event when it first occurred, that interest may diminish as the years pass.
Meanwhile, the harm to the individual may grow if the information continues to dominate search results. When those scales tip too far in one direction, the law provides a mechanism to restore balance. That mechanism is the Right to Be Forgotten. Understanding how proportionality works is often the hidden factor that transforms a rejected request into a successful one.
Finding the right approach after a rejected right to be forgotten request
If you have previously tried to remove search results and failed, it does not necessarily mean the request was unjustified. In many cases, the issue lies in how the argument was presented rather than the strength of the underlying case.
By focusing on proportionality and demonstrating why the balance has shifted over time, it is sometimes possible to revisit the request with a much stronger foundation. At Cohen Davis, we regularly assist individuals whose initial requests have been rejected.
Often the key lies in reframing the case around the legal principles that search engines actually apply when assessing removal requests. The process is not about rewriting history. It is about ensuring that your online identity reflects who you are today, rather than allowing outdated or disproportionate information to define you indefinitely.
