Google Spain

Addressing critiques and misunderstandings one year later

Paul de Hert, V. Papakonstantinou

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

In the text that follows the authors will rst highlight some subjectively important facts that need to be kept under consideration while assessing the Court’s decision against the business model currently employed by US internet companies (section 1). In section 2 the authors will engage with Sartor’s concerns with regard to search engines being classi ed as ‘data controllers’. Section 3 will deal with the issue of extraterritoriality, attempting to assess both Wolf’s reservations and Hijmans’ enthusiasm. e Court’s balancing between economic interests and the right to data protection will be elaborated upon in section 4, while also attempting to address Peers’ and Solove’s criticism on the Court’s balancing method. Finally, in section 5, the authors, in response to Kuner’s idea of the globalization of constitutional clashes, will present their own thoughts on Google’s actual implementation of the Court’s decision for the past year and the DPAs’ reaction to it.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)624-638
JournalMaastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law
Volume22
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

court decision
search engine
Spain
data protection
criticism
globalization
Internet
economics

Cite this

@article{5d44834cc2474c039ca86cac19c88591,
title = "Google Spain: Addressing critiques and misunderstandings one year later",
abstract = "In the text that follows the authors will rst highlight some subjectively important facts that need to be kept under consideration while assessing the Court’s decision against the business model currently employed by US internet companies (section 1). In section 2 the authors will engage with Sartor’s concerns with regard to search engines being classi ed as ‘data controllers’. Section 3 will deal with the issue of extraterritoriality, attempting to assess both Wolf’s reservations and Hijmans’ enthusiasm. e Court’s balancing between economic interests and the right to data protection will be elaborated upon in section 4, while also attempting to address Peers’ and Solove’s criticism on the Court’s balancing method. Finally, in section 5, the authors, in response to Kuner’s idea of the globalization of constitutional clashes, will present their own thoughts on Google’s actual implementation of the Court’s decision for the past year and the DPAs’ reaction to it.",
author = "{de Hert}, Paul and V. Papakonstantinou",
year = "2015",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "624--638",
journal = "Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law",
issn = "1023-263X",
number = "4",

}

Google Spain : Addressing critiques and misunderstandings one year later. / de Hert, Paul; Papakonstantinou, V.

In: Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, Vol. 22, No. 4, 2015, p. 624-638.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Google Spain

T2 - Addressing critiques and misunderstandings one year later

AU - de Hert, Paul

AU - Papakonstantinou, V.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - In the text that follows the authors will rst highlight some subjectively important facts that need to be kept under consideration while assessing the Court’s decision against the business model currently employed by US internet companies (section 1). In section 2 the authors will engage with Sartor’s concerns with regard to search engines being classi ed as ‘data controllers’. Section 3 will deal with the issue of extraterritoriality, attempting to assess both Wolf’s reservations and Hijmans’ enthusiasm. e Court’s balancing between economic interests and the right to data protection will be elaborated upon in section 4, while also attempting to address Peers’ and Solove’s criticism on the Court’s balancing method. Finally, in section 5, the authors, in response to Kuner’s idea of the globalization of constitutional clashes, will present their own thoughts on Google’s actual implementation of the Court’s decision for the past year and the DPAs’ reaction to it.

AB - In the text that follows the authors will rst highlight some subjectively important facts that need to be kept under consideration while assessing the Court’s decision against the business model currently employed by US internet companies (section 1). In section 2 the authors will engage with Sartor’s concerns with regard to search engines being classi ed as ‘data controllers’. Section 3 will deal with the issue of extraterritoriality, attempting to assess both Wolf’s reservations and Hijmans’ enthusiasm. e Court’s balancing between economic interests and the right to data protection will be elaborated upon in section 4, while also attempting to address Peers’ and Solove’s criticism on the Court’s balancing method. Finally, in section 5, the authors, in response to Kuner’s idea of the globalization of constitutional clashes, will present their own thoughts on Google’s actual implementation of the Court’s decision for the past year and the DPAs’ reaction to it.

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 624

EP - 638

JO - Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law

JF - Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law

SN - 1023-263X

IS - 4

ER -