The Right to Be Forgotten: What UK Journalists Need to Know

What Is the Right to Be Forgotten?

The “right to be forgotten” — more formally known as the right to erasure — is enshrined in Article 17 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). It allows individuals to request the deletion of personal data held about them when certain conditions are met. The concept gained widespread attention following the 2014 European Court of Justice ruling in Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González, which established that search engines could be required to delist results containing personal data.

Since the UK's departure from the EU, the UK GDPR (retained under the Data Protection Act 2018) continues to provide this right, though its application is governed by UK courts and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) rather than European institutions.

When Does the Right to Erasure Apply?

Under Article 17, an individual can request erasure when:

The personal data is no longer necessary for the purpose it was originally collected
The individual withdraws consent and there is no other legal basis for processing
The individual objects to processing and there are no overriding legitimate grounds
The data has been unlawfully processed
The data must be erased to comply with a legal obligation
The data was collected from a child in relation to an online service

However, the right is not absolute. Article 17(3) provides explicit exemptions, including where processing is necessary for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information — which is where journalism comes in.

The Journalism Exemption Under UK Law

The Data Protection Act 2018, Schedule 2, Part 5, provides a specific exemption for journalism. Where personal data is processed for the “special purposes” of journalism, academic purposes, artistic purposes, or literary purposes, many of the UK GDPR's provisions — including the right to erasure — do not apply, provided that:

The processing is carried out with a view to publication of journalistic material
The data controller reasonably believes that publication would be in the public interest
Compliance with the relevant GDPR provision would be incompatible with the journalistic purpose

Important: The journalism exemption is not a blanket shield. You must be able to demonstrate a genuine journalistic purpose and a reasonable belief in the public interest. The ICO can and does investigate complaints against media organisations, and relying on the exemption without proper justification can lead to enforcement action.

Key Case Law for UK Journalists

Several cases have shaped how the right to be forgotten interacts with press freedom in the UK:

Google Spain v AEPD (2014): The foundational EU ruling that established search engines as data controllers and required them to delist results in certain circumstances. While an EU case, it set the framework that the UK initially adopted
NT1 and NT2 v Google (2018): The first UK cases on delisting. The High Court ruled that NT2's conviction should be delisted because the information was no longer relevant, but refused NT1's request because his conviction remained relevant to his ongoing business activities. The cases demonstrated that courts will conduct a fact-specific balancing exercise
ICO guidance: The ICO has published detailed guidance on the right to erasure and the journalism exemption, which should be your first port of call when assessing a request

The key takeaway from the case law is that context matters enormously. Factors such as the seriousness of the original conduct, the passage of time, whether the individual is a public figure, and the ongoing public interest in the information all influence the outcome. For a broader overview of data protection in journalism, see our GDPR guide for UK journalists.

Practical Impact on News Archives

One of the most contentious areas of the right to be forgotten for journalists is its impact on news archives. Online archives are an essential resource for accountability journalism, historical research, and public understanding. Removing articles from archives can create gaps in the public record and undermine the principle of open justice.

In practice, news organisations typically respond to erasure requests in one of several ways:

Refusal with justification: Where the article serves an ongoing public interest, most publishers will refuse the request and explain why the journalism exemption applies
Anonymisation: In some cases, removing the individual's name from an archived article can satisfy the request without destroying the journalistic value of the piece
Noindex tags: Adding a noindex meta tag prevents search engines from surfacing the page in results, without actually deleting the article. This is sometimes used as a compromise
Full removal: In rare cases where the article has no ongoing public interest value and the individual's privacy rights clearly outweigh press freedom, removal may be appropriate

Warning: Never make a unilateral decision to delete or modify archived content in response to an erasure request. Always escalate to your editor and, where available, your organisation's legal team. Ad hoc responses can set problematic precedents and expose your organisation to further claims.

How to Respond to an Erasure Request

When you receive a right to erasure request, follow these steps:

Acknowledge receipt promptly. You have one calendar month to respond under UK GDPR. Acknowledge the request in writing and explain your timeline
Identify the data at issue. Determine exactly what personal data the request relates to and where it is held (articles, databases, social media posts, photographs)
Assess the journalism exemption. Consider whether the data was processed for journalistic purposes, whether there is a public interest in retention, and whether compliance with the erasure request would be incompatible with that purpose
Conduct a balancing exercise. Weigh the individual's privacy rights against the public interest in the information. Consider the factors from NT1 and NT2: the nature of the information, the individual's role, the passage of time, and the ongoing relevance
Document your decision. Whatever you decide, record your reasoning. If challenged by the ICO, you will need to demonstrate that you conducted a proper assessment
Respond clearly. Inform the individual of your decision. If you are refusing, explain the basis for your refusal and inform them of their right to complain to the ICO

Balancing Privacy and Public Interest

The tension between the right to be forgotten and press freedom will only intensify as more individuals become aware of their data rights and as AI-driven search tools make personal information more discoverable. Journalists must navigate this tension thoughtfully, recognising that both privacy and press freedom are fundamental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 8 and 10 respectively).

The best approach is to develop clear organisational policies for handling erasure requests, train staff on the relevant law, and maintain good records. For freelance journalists without institutional legal support, the NUJ's legal helpline and the ICO's published guidance are invaluable resources.

Further Resources

GDPR for UK Journalists — Comprehensive data protection guide for the newsroom
Defamation Law for UK Journalists — Understanding libel and the available defences
Contempt of Court Rules — Another essential legal guide for reporters
UK Journalism Ethics Codes — Professional standards and regulatory guidance
ICO: Right to Erasure Guidance — Official ICO guidance on handling erasure requests