Canada’s privacy watchdog has ruled that people can ask search engines to remove certain personal details from results, but Google says it will not follow the order. The decision, released on August 27, 2025, stems from a case where a person wanted old news stories about dropped criminal charges hidden from searches.
What the Ruling Means for Canadians
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Philippe Dufresne, stated that under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, known as PIPEDA, individuals have a limited right to request delisting. This applies when outdated or harmful information shows up in search results.
In this specific case, the complainant asked Google to remove links to articles about a criminal charge that was later withdrawn. Dufresne found that the harm to the person’s privacy outweighed public interest in keeping the links visible.
The ruling sets out clear factors for future cases. Courts and experts say this could shape how privacy laws work in the digital age.
Experts note that Canada lacks a full “right to be forgotten” like in Europe, where people can erase data from the internet. Here, it only affects search results, not the original content.
Google’s Stance and Refusal
Google has pushed back, arguing the decision oversteps and could harm free expression. The company says it respects privacy but believes the ruling conflicts with global standards.
In a statement, Google explained it will not delist the links in Canada. This marks a rare public clash between a tech giant and Canadian regulators.
Privacy advocates worry this refusal could weaken trust in online privacy protections. Google handles billions of searches daily, making its compliance crucial.
The company has faced similar issues worldwide. In Europe, it has delisted over a million links since 2014 under stricter rules.
Background of the Long-Running Case
This dispute started in 2015 when the individual filed a complaint. It took years of reviews and appeals to reach this point.
The case highlights tensions between privacy rights and access to information. Dufresne’s office reviewed evidence showing real harm, like job losses due to old search results.
Key milestones include:
- 2015: Initial complaint filed against Google.
- 2018: Federal court involvement begins.
- 2025: Final ruling issued, recommending delisting.
Legal experts say this could lead to more complaints, with over 100 similar cases pending in Canada.
Broader Implications for Privacy and Tech
The decision comes amid growing concerns about online data. In 2025, data breaches affected millions worldwide, pushing for stronger laws.
Canada’s move aligns with global trends. For instance, the European Union fined Google 50 million euros in 2019 for privacy violations.
If Google ignores the ruling, the commissioner could take it to court. This might force changes in how search engines operate in Canada.
Privacy groups praise the ruling as a win for individuals. They argue it helps people move on from past mistakes without permanent online stigma.
However, free speech defenders warn it could lead to censorship. Balancing these rights remains a hot debate.
Here’s a quick look at how “right to be forgotten” works in different places:
| Region | Key Rule | Enforcement Body | Delistings Since Start |
|---|---|---|---|
| Canada | Limited to search results under PIPEDA | Privacy Commissioner | Fewer than 50 (estimated) |
| European Union | Applies globally for EU residents | Data Protection Authorities | Over 1 million by Google |
| United States | No formal right; relies on company policies | None centralized | Case-by-case, voluntary |
| Australia | Emerging discussions, no law yet | Privacy Commissioner | Minimal, under review |
This table shows Canada’s approach is moderate compared to others.
What’s Next and Potential Outcomes
Dufresne urged Google to comply within 30 days, but the company shows no signs of backing down. If it goes to court, a judge could enforce the delisting.
This case ties into other 2025 events, like debates over Bill C-18, where Google threatened to block news links in Canada over payment disputes. Tensions between tech firms and regulators continue to rise.
Individuals facing similar issues can file complaints through the privacy commissioner’s office. Success depends on proving harm outweighs public interest.
We encourage readers to share their thoughts on privacy versus free speech in the comments below. Have you dealt with outdated online info? Let us know and spread this article to spark discussion.
