European court: Google must yield on personal info
Headline Legal News
People should have some say over the results that pop up when they conduct a search of their own name online, Europe's highest court said Tuesday.
In a landmark decision, The Court of Justice of the European Union said Google must listen and sometimes comply when individuals ask the Internet search giant to remove links to newspaper articles or websites containing their personal information.
Campaigners say the ruling effectively backs individual privacy rights over the freedom of information.
In an advisory judgment that will impact on all search engines, including Yahoo and Microsoft's Bing, the court said a search on a person's name yields a results page that amounts to an individual profile. Under European privacy law, it said people should be able to ask to have links to private information in that 'profile' removed.
It is not clear how exactly the court envisions Google and others handling complaints, and Google said it is still studying the advisory ruling, which cannot be appealed.
In the ruling, the court said people "may address such a request directly to the operator of the search engine ... which must then duly examine its merits." The right is not absolute, as search engines must weigh "the legitimate interest of Internet users potentially interested in having access to that information" against the right to privacy and protection of personal data.
Related listings
-
Casino law hinges on Massachusetts high court case
Headline Legal News 05/05/2014The fate of casino gambling in Massachusetts may hinge on a case before the state's highest court Monday. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is set to hear arguments in a case centered on whether a question should be allowed on the November bal...
-
Court considers whistleblower free speech rights
Headline Legal News 04/30/2014When Edward Lane testified about corruption at a community college program he headed in Alabama, he was fired. The Supreme Court on Monday considered whether the First Amendment protects Lane and millions of other public employees from job retaliatio...
-
High court to hear dispute about TV over Internet
Headline Legal News 04/21/2014Thirty years ago, big media companies failed to convince the Supreme Court of the threat posed by home video recordings. Now they're back — and trying to rein in a different innovation that they say threatens their financial well-being. The battle ha...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.