“Right to Be Forgotten” vs US Norms: A Global Primer

In today’s interconnected world and the broader context of the internet, information moves quickly and often stays online indefinitely. The “Right to Be Forgotten” (RTBF) emerged as a privacy principle that allows individuals and groups to request the removal of outdated or irrelevant personal data from search engines and websites.

However, the scope of this right varies widely between regions due to differing national laws, legislation, and how member states interpret and enforce these rules. While Europe recognizes it as a legal standard under EU law, the United States approaches online content through the lens of free speech and public interest, with important considerations involving the First Amendment and the Privacy Act.

This blog post explains the differences between RTBF-style requests and U.S. norms, and how jurisdiction and national courts, including the Supreme Court, determine what media removal options are available to individuals and organizations. Researchers and legal experts have noted the growing importance of balancing these interests worldwide, especially regarding sensitive information, human rights, and the responsibilities of online platforms.

What Is the “Right to Be Forgotten”?

The “Right to Be Forgotten” is a legal concept established in the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It gives individuals the ability to request that their personal information be erased from online sources when it is no longer necessary, accurate, or relevant.

In practice, RTBF allows people to:

• Request that search engines like Google delist pages containing outdated or harmful personal information.
• Ask websites or data brokers to delete personal data that no longer serves a legitimate purpose.
• Ensure that private or inaccurate content does not dominate search results for their name.

This principle recognizes privacy as a fundamental right and aims to give individuals greater control over their digital identities, which has important implications for security and data protection. Importantly, the obligation to comply with RTBF requests lies with data controllers and processors, who must balance privacy rights with other fundamental rights such as freedom of expression.

How It Works in Europe

Under GDPR Article 17, individuals can submit “Right to Erasure” or “Right to Be Forgotten” requests directly to:

• Search engines (such as Google or Bing)
• Websites or data controllers that store or display personal data

Once a valid request is received, the organization must:

1. Assess the claim to confirm that it meets the legal standard.
2. Remove or deindex the data if the request is justified.
3. Notify other entities processing the same data when possible.

Common grounds for RTBF requests include:

• Old or inaccurate personal information
• Content related to minor legal matters that are no longer relevant
• Private information published without consent
• Data that causes unfair harm or risk

If a company refuses a valid request, individuals may appeal through national privacy regulators or courts. For example, the privacy regulator in France plays a central role in enforcing RTBF compliance and can impose penalties for non-compliance.

The language and interpretation of RTBF requests can vary by member state, which can affect the extent to which certain content is removed or restricted. This creates challenges in applying a consistent standard across the European Union and raises questions about the consequences of enforcement beyond national borders. The European Court has also played a key role in interpreting these rights and their limits.

The United States Perspective

In contrast, the United States does not recognize a formal Right to Be Forgotten. Instead, it prioritizes freedom of speech and public access to information as core constitutional values.

This means that:

• Online platforms are not legally required to remove links to lawful content.
• Media outlets and publishers generally have the right to keep information public, even if it is outdated or unfavorable. These editorial decisions are typically governed by platform policies rather than government mandates.
• Privacy requests are usually handled through platform policies or contractual agreements, not by law.

While there are exceptions, such as copyright removals under the DMCA or limited privacy laws at the state level, the U.S. approach favors open information flow over broad erasure rights.

The power to enforce content removal is limited compared to Europe, and the government role is generally less direct. Instead, platforms exercise discretion based on their own rules and advertising interests, which are often linked to their economic sustainability.

Key Differences Between RTBF and US Norms

Aspect	Right to Be Forgotten (EU/UK)	United States Norms
Legal Basis	GDPR Article 17 (Right to Erasure)	No federal RTBF law
Core Value	Privacy and personal dignity	Freedom of speech and public access
Scope	Applies to online platforms, data brokers, and websites	Limited to specific laws like DMCA or privacy statutes
Standard of Proof	Must show that data is outdated, irrelevant, or inaccurate	Must show defamation, privacy violation, or copyright infringement
Appeal Process	Through privacy regulators or national courts	Through civil litigation or platform support channels
Primary Goal	Give individuals control over their personal information	Protect lawful publication and open discourse

These differences mean that a successful removal request in Europe may not work the same way in the U.S.

How Jurisdiction Affects Media Removal Options

When requesting content removal, jurisdiction determines what legal or procedural options are available.

1. European Union and United Kingdom

Individuals can file RTBF requests under GDPR, supported by regulatory authorities. Platforms are legally obligated to respond, and non-compliance can lead to penalties enforced by data protection offices.

2. United States

Requests rely on platform-specific policies, defamation claims, copyright laws, or privacy statutes in certain states like California (CCPA).
Search engines may voluntarily delist harmful or outdated content but are not legally required to do so.

3. Other Regions

Countries such as Canada, Brazil, Japan, and South Korea, as well as many in the Global South, have implemented partial or hybrid RTBF-style systems. These may include limited delisting rights balanced with public interest considerations.

For global brands and individuals, understanding the jurisdiction where the data is hosted or indexed is critical to choosing the right removal pathway.

When to Use RTBF vs Traditional Media Removal

Use RTBF-style requests when:

• You are based in or targeting audiences within the European Union or United Kingdom.
• The content contains outdated or inaccurate personal information.
• The issue is privacy-related rather than defamatory.

Use media removal or U.S.-based methods when:

• The platform is hosted in the United States.
• The issue involves defamation, copyright, or harassment.
• Legal action or policy-based removal is the only option.

In many cases, a hybrid strategy combining privacy requests, DMCA notices, and search deindexing delivers the best results.

How Media Removal Services Navigate Global Requests

Media removal professionals help bridge the gap between international privacy rights and platform-specific rules. They:

• Determine which jurisdiction applies to your case.
• Draft and submit valid RTBF, privacy, or copyright removal requests.
• Coordinate with data controllers and online platforms across multiple regions.
• Monitor follow-up actions and prevent reappearance.

Their experience ensures that requests meet the correct legal standards for each country, increasing the likelihood of success.

The Role of Data Protection Authorities in Enforcing Privacy

Data protection authorities are key regulators responsible for enforcing privacy laws such as the GDPR and managing Right to Be Forgotten requests. They review removal claims, ensure organizations comply with legal obligations, and balance individual privacy rights with public interest and freedom of expression. These authorities have the power to investigate complaints and impose penalties, making them central to privacy protection in Europe. In contrast, privacy regulators in the United States have a more limited role in content removal, highlighting important jurisdictional differences in handling online privacy and information access.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is the “Right to Be Forgotten”?

It is a privacy right under GDPR that allows individuals to request the deletion or delisting of outdated or irrelevant personal information from online sources.

2. Does the United States have a Right to Be Forgotten law?

No. The U.S. does not have a formal RTBF law. Content removal typically depends on platform policies or specific laws such as DMCA or defamation statutes.

3. Can I request Google to remove my name from search results in the U.S.?

Yes, but only in limited cases such as doxxing, explicit content, or copyright violations. Google’s global RTBF forms apply mainly to European users.

4. What types of content can be removed under RTBF?

Outdated personal data, old legal records, or private information that no longer serves a public interest can be removed under RTBF laws.

5. How do media removal professionals help with RTBF requests?

They assess your situation, prepare compliant requests, submit them across regions, and ensure follow-up with platforms and data controllers.

Conclusion

The Right to Be Forgotten represents a powerful privacy framework in Europe, giving individuals control over how they appear online.
In contrast, the U.S. model prioritizes free expression and open access, limiting formal erasure rights.

For anyone managing an online reputation across borders, understanding these differences is essential. The best approach often blends RTBF principles, legal protections, and strategic media removal techniques tailored to jurisdiction.

Get a Quote Now if your personal information or brand content appears online without consent, taking the right regional approach can make all the difference.