The Ultimate Guide to the Right to Be Forgotten (And How We Can Help)

The Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF), established under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU and retained under UK GDPR post-Brexit, continues to evolve in 2025. With the rise of AI, increased digital scrutiny, and legal debates surrounding privacy vs. public interest, the RTBF remains a crucial tool for individuals seeking online content removal. In this article, we explore how the RTBF has changed, the challenges users face today, and what the future holds.

1. The Evolution of the Right to Be Forgotten

The RTBF was first established in 2014 following the landmark case Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González, which allowed individuals to request search engines to delist links to personal information that was “inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive.” Over the years, various rulings and regulations have refined how RTBF is applied.

Key Developments Leading Up to 2025:

• Post-Brexit Adaptations: The UK retained RTBF under UK GDPR, but with potential divergence from the EU’s interpretation.

• AI & Automation in Content Removal: Search engines now use AI to assess RTBF requests faster, reducing manual reviews.

• Judicial Clarifications: Courts have refined what constitutes “public interest” vs. “private harm.”

• Expanded Scope: RTBF now extends to more digital platforms beyond search engines, including AI-generated data archives and deep web indexing.

2. Challenges in 2025: Where RTBF Faces Resistance

Despite its importance, enforcing RTBF still presents several legal, ethical, and technical hurdles. Here are the main challenges:

a) The Public Interest vs. Privacy Battle

• Courts continue to deny RTBF requests where information is considered in the public interest (e.g., criminal records, professional misconduct, or politically relevant data).

• Media organizations often resist RTBF claims, arguing that they infringe on press freedom.

• Journalistic archives remain largely exempt, meaning delisted search results do not remove the original article.

b) UK vs. EU: Diverging Standards?

• The UK’s approach post-Brexit could diverge from EU GDPR, with potential weaker enforcement.

• UK Data Protection regulators may adopt stricter definitions of “public interest”, making it harder to succeed in RTBF requests.

c) AI & Machine Learning Challenges

• AI-generated content (e.g., deepfake databases, automated news scraping) complicates RTBF applications.

• Personal data profiling by AI-driven search algorithms makes content resurfacing more common, even after removal.

• The dark web and decentralized platforms bypass traditional RTBF enforcement mechanisms.

d) Cross-Border Content Removal Issues

• Google and other search engines only delist links within specific jurisdictions (e.g., RTBF requests in France won’t apply globally).

• Conflicting international laws limit the effectiveness of RTBF, especially when dealing with US-based platforms that emphasize free speech over privacy.

3. The Future of the Right to Be Forgotten

Looking ahead, several trends and developments could shape the RTBF in the coming years.

a) Stronger AI-Driven Content Removal Systems

• AI-driven automated systems could preemptively detect and remove harmful content before it spreads.

• Blockchain-based reputation management tools might allow users to flag and verify data for removal.

b) Legal Precedents & Reforms

• We may see new EU rulings clarifying RTBF scope and the balance between privacy and press freedom.

• Governments might introduce more proactive data privacy laws, compelling search engines and social media platforms to act faster on RTBF claims.

c) Global Expansion of RTBF Principles

• While RTBF remains largely an EU/UK concept, similar laws are emerging in Japan, Canada, and some US states (e.g., California’s privacy regulations).

• A global privacy framework could standardize RTBF across jurisdictions.

d) Ethical Debates & Public Awareness

• The rise of cancel culture and online shaming has led to increased debates over RTBF abuse.

• The need for greater transparency in AI decision-making regarding delisting requests.

• Public education campaigns may help individuals better understand their digital privacy rights.

Conclusion

The Right to Be Forgotten remains a powerful tool for protecting online privacy, but it faces new legal, ethical, and technological challenges in 2025. With AI playing a larger role, diverging UK and EU approaches, and global privacy movements gaining momentum, the landscape of RTBF is set to evolve. Whether seeking content removal for personal reasons or professional reputation management, individuals must stay informed about their rights and the latest legal interpretations.

As the digital world continues to grow, so too will the need for stronger, clearer, and fairer RTBF enforcement mechanisms. The coming years will determine whether the balance between privacy and public interest can be effectively maintained in an increasingly interconnected society.