Press Freedom vs. Right to be Forgotten: The Privacy Authority's New Frontiers

1. The facts

   According to press reports (specifically Prima Comunicazione, Huffington Post, and Il Giorno) between 2023 and 2024, numerous citizens filed complaints with the Privacy Authority regarding the persistent visibility on search engines of articles about old legal matters.

   The typical case involves individuals caught up in preliminary investigations or first-instance trials, later concluded with acquittal or dismissal over 10 years ago, whose names remain associated with damaging headlines when searching on Google. The legal proceedings do not involve a single court but consist of a series of administrative rulings by the Authority and orders from the Civil Court of Cassation. Complainants argue that the failure to de-index or update the articles with the favorable outcome causes permanent digital pillory, no longer justified by current public interest.

2. 

   The laws at play

   The legal framework is based on Art. 17 of the GDPR (Right to be forgotten), which allows for the deletion of data no longer necessary, while safeguarding freedom of information. Articles 136-139 of the Privacy Code regulate the exemption from consent for journalistic purposes, while Art. 99 governs preservation for historical purposes.

   Crucial is Art. 64-ter disp. att. c.p.p., introduced by the Cartabia Reform, which allows the data subject to request the annotation of the acquittal ruling at the bottom of the article to obtain automatic de-indexing. Violation of these principles can lead to administrative fines and the obligation to compensate for damages under Art. 82 of the GDPR.

3. Case law trends

   Higher court case law has clarified that the right to be forgotten does not necessarily entail the deletion of an article from the newspaper's archive, as it constitutes collective memory. However, there is an obligation to de-index: the publisher must adopt technical measures so that the article does not appear in external search engine results.

   The Privacy Authority has established that an interval of about 10 years is generally appropriate for the right to be forgotten to prevail over public interest, unless the subject holds public office or the case retains exceptional social relevance.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it teaches professionals

   1. Prepare precise de-indexing requests, expressly citing Art. 64-ter disp. att. c.p.p. if applicable;
   2. Technically verify, using SEO tools, if the article is effectively excluded from search engine robots;
   3. Assess the publisher's liability separately from that of the search engine (Google);
   4. Monitor data retention periods, remembering that the 10-year limit is a guideline but not an absolute parameter.

9. The developments: dynamic control of digital identity

   Between 2024 and 2026, the Court of Cassation redefined the boundaries of online archives. Through ruling 14488 of 2025, the Supreme Court established that the right to be forgotten has evolved into a right to dynamic control over one's digital identity. Publishers must now ensure that archived news is updated with final judicial outcomes, such as acquittals, ensuring proper data contextualization. Furthermore, ordinance 6433 of 2026 affirmed Google's liability for damages caused by delays in de-indexing time-barred facts, while ruling 17738 of 2024 specified that archival protection only applies if the original news was lawful. These developments move beyond mere deletion toward a mandate for historical accuracy, necessary to prevent the creation of an algorithmic stigma caused by the persistence of outdated data, which also impacts the training of AI systems.

References: Regolamento UE 2016/679 (GDPR), Art. 17, Art. 82D.Lgs. 196/2003 (Codice Privacy), Artt. 136, 137, 138, 139, 99Art. 64-ter disp. att. c.p.p. (Riforma Cartabia)

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 18 August 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction