A local media outlet filed an ‘amparo’ action against Google in Uruguay, alleging press-censorship by Google for the de-indexing in European jurisdiction of news that residents of that territory had reported as violating the data-protection rules currently in force in Europe. It is worth noting that Google proceeded to restrict access to those press notes, following the procedure for handling complaints, as required by the European Regulation for the Protection of Personal Data (known as GDPR); that is, by immediately notifying claimant (i.e., media outlet), that they could file discharges. However, claimant preferred not to use such procedure and instead promoted an amparo procedure in Uruguay (i.e., a summary proceeding for the protection of fundamental rights that cannot be pursued under other actions), for the re-indexing of the news.
Our Courts repealed the amparo action in both instances.
The final ruling of the Court of Appels of 7th Turn, which confirmed the initial rejection of the amparo promoted by the local outlet, was based on the following merits: (1) Uruguay lacks any competence to be “police” of foreign legislation; (2) Google´s procedure of granting prior notice to the editor of the news after de-indexing was "correct", since it did not imply abuse towards a liberty that is not unrestricted; (3) the Court ruled as “questionable” that the ‘right to be forgotten’ does even exists and has legal basis in Uruguay, since it was explicitly excluded from the draft of the recently enacted Law of Urgent Consideration; (4) the Court acknowledged how the Google-search works, stating that it “limits itself to collect information from addresses or existing sites on the web and orders them through indexes (…) Google does not directly provides the information of contents, but rather provides guides or address references that contains links to access the place where such information is located”; and (5) the decision clarifies that the only person to be summoned in case of any claim is Google LLC as owner of the search engine, who does not have domicile in Uruguay.
This precedent is highly relevant as it is a topic currently in vogue in the region and the whole world, in which our Courts showed deep knowledge of international cases on the matter, being the first final and enforceable sentence involving Google in Uruguay.
For access to the full decision click here.
See more »
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© Dentons | Attorney Advertising
Refine your interests »
This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.
Back to Top
Explore 2021 Readers’ Choice Awards
Copyright © JD Supra, LLC
Menu
