The right to control the autocomplete function

ABSTRACT

The development of the Internet, though it brings many benefits, it also brings threats to rights and freedoms and the right to privacy is usually its ‘prey’. Internet search engines are one of the most important factors that shape the web. The establishment of the right to be forgotten as an element allowing to profile one’s image on the web was a milestone in granting protection in the on-line world. The problem of the autocomplete function stays on the margin of mainstream discussions. This function, seemingly only technical, in practice affects web traffic directions. This article presents the impact of the autocomplete function on privacy and a discussion on whether this impact is significant enough for relevant protection mechanisms to be necessary. The research aim is to answer the following question: should the right to control the autocomplete function be protected and if yes, on what terms?

KEYWORDS:

• right to privacy
• auto-complete
• right to be forgotten
• algorithm
• Google
• search engine

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 C-293-12 Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications [2014] (EJC 8 April 2014); Case C-203/15 Tele2 Sverige v Post-och telestyrelsen [2012] (EJC 21 December 2012); Case C-673/17 Bundesverband v Planet49 [2019] (EJC 1 October 2019); Case C-92/09 Volker und Markus Schecke and Eifert [2010] (EJC 9 November 2010).

2 Case C-131/12 Google Spain and Google [2014] (EJC13 May 2014).

3 Case C-160/15 GS Media v Sanoma [2015] (EJC 8 September 2016).

4 YEES – Youth Entrepreneurship and Employment Support, Project Number: 2015-1-ES01-KA202-016077, Erasmus + KA2 Strategic Partnership Vocational Education <https://yees.pixel-online.org> accessed 2 March 2024.

5 RH Weber, ‘The Digital Future – a Challenge for Privacy?’ (2015) 31 Computer Law & Security Rev. 237.

6 PJ Windley, Digital Identity: Unmasking Identity Management Architecture (IMA) (1th edn, O’Reilly, 2005) 9.

7 WL Prosser, ‘Privacy’ (1960) 48 California Law Rev. 384.

8 Commission Directive (EC) on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC, OJ/04.05.2016/L/119/1–88 (General Data Protection Regulation; GDRP).

9 GDPR art. 4(1).

10 Case C–131/12, Google Spain and Google [2014] (EJC 13 May 2014).

11 S Karapapa and M Borghi, ‘Search Engine Liability for Autocomplete Suggestions: Personality, Privacy and the Power of the Algorithm’ (2015) 23 International Journal of Law and Information Technology 3, 261.

12 Litigation cases in matters of the autocomplete function include: Google/Lyonnaise de garantie Cour de Cassation, 19 June 2013 (France); Direct Energie/Google Tribunal de Commerce de Paris, Ord 7 May 2009 (France); Albert Tanneur Institut & Co c. Google Inc, Tribunal Cantonal du Jura, 12 February 2011 (Switzerland), OLG Hamburg, 3 U 67/11, 26 May 2011 (Germany) OLG Munich, 29 U 1747/11, 29 September 2011 (Germany).

13 RM Stair and GW Reynolds, Fundamental of Information Systems (9th edn, 2018) 455; Karapapa and Borghi (n 11).

14 X v Google, (2013), N RG 2012/68306 (Tribunale di Milano).

15 <https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/7368877> accessed 15 February 2024.

16 <https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/106230?co=GENIE.Platform%3DAndroid&hl=pl> accessed 15 February 2024.

17 E Volokh and DM Falk, ‘First Amendment Protection for Search Engine Search Results’ (2012) 8 Journal of Law, Economics & Policy 883.

18 Search King, Inc. v Google Technology Inc.(2003), CIV-02-1457-M, (United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma) of 27 May.

19 Langdon v Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft Corp. (2007)474 F Supp 2d 622, (United States District Court, D. Delaware).

20 Google Autocomplete (2013) VI ZR 269/12. BGH, (German Federal Court of Justice).

21 German Federal Court of Justice, ‘Liability of Search Engine Operator for Autocomplete Suggestions that Infringe Rights of Privacy – “Autocomplete” Function’ (2013) 8 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 797.

22 N Gelernter and A Herzberg, ‘Autocomplete Injection Attack’ in I Askoxylakis and others (eds), Computer Security – ESORICS 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 9879 (Springer, 2016).

23 M. X./Google Inc., Eric S. v Google France, (2010) (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris).

24 GDPR art. 9(2).

25 RE Robertson and others, ‘Auditing Autocomplete: Suggestion Networks and Recursive Algorithm Interrogation WebSci’ (2019) 19 Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science 235.

26 LS Al-Abbas, AS Haider and R Hussein, ‘Google Autocomplete Search Algorithms and the Arabs’ Perspectives on Gender: A Case Study of Google Egypt’ (2020) 20 Gema Online Journal of Language Studies 4, 95.

27 B Wittes and JC Liu, ‘The Privacy Paradox: The Privacy Benefits of Privacy Threats’ (2015) Centre for Technology Innovation at Brookings <https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Wittes-and-Liu_Privacy-paradox_v10.pdf> accessed 15 February 2024.