The recent European Court of Justice ruling that individuals have a ‘right to the forgotten’ under existing law may be heralded by some as a victory for reputation protection. But this is far from the case and will only lead to laziness. Reputations take time and effort to build – there are no shortcuts.
The ruling applies to online search results where the only search term is someone’s name. It means that search engines, such as Google, will have to remove links to personal data that is ‘inaccurate, irrelevant or no longer relevant’ from their results.
There remains a public interest test in place and claims can be rejected but despite this, reports suggest that 12,000 removal requests were received by Google in 24 hours and 41,000 over five days.
Google is currently considering its response via a 10-strong advisory committee and there are still many issues which require clarification, but at a recent BDB business breakfast a number of legal and reputation management issues were discussed.
In terms of reputation it is clear that the decision is not a golden panacea.
- The information is still there – even if the details are removed from the search results it continues to exist on the underlying website. It might take a little longer to find the information but it will still be possible. A good journalist or MP has a long memory and will eventually find what they are after. Does trying to remove the information enhance your credibility?
- There could also be more cross-over between personal reputations and those of the organisations you work for. The ruling only applies to individuals, but if, for instance, a journalist wants to try to prevent a piece from being removed in the future then they could look to link an individual’s employer in the piece. This could have more impact on reputations, not less.
- The ruling only applies in the EU so there could potentially be different results depending on which ‘version’ of Google is used. It opens up the possibility of quite different reputations for individuals depending on where the online search is being conducted. This is something that big corporates are more used to but could apply more widely.
- If you are going to make a request then your communications argument for doing so need to be built in advance. Unsuccessful requests could be publicised as could successful ones. The idea that any action can be taken ‘in secret’ nowadays is laughable. Any action taken has to be able to be explained and that justification has to be robust.
- It is important that search results do not get overblown in their importance. There remains no substitute for hard work. Individuals and organisations need to deliver news stories, shareable content, website updates and positive media coverage. These are all good practice in communications generally. Critically they also need strong stakeholder relations based on a sound understanding on the needs and requirements of those stakeholders.
A delisting is a potential tool but it should not be the basis of reputation management. There should be the attitude of ‘let’s not worry too much because we can get it removed later’. The chances are this won’t happen and even if it does, have you actually inflicted damage on yourself?
For those involved in issues such as a data processing or employment there are some significant implications. But for reputation, the implications of the decision are in danger of being seriously overestimated. Investment in reputation still requires time, effort and resources. What’s more, protecting that reputation can come at a much higher price.