Report on the 9th International Media Law Forum (IMLF) with Prof. Wu and Julie Wahrendorf
The 9th International Media Law Forum (IMLF) took place on May 18, 2017, at the Unteres Schloss campus of the University of Siegen. The Institute for Media and Communications Law (IMKR) and the German-American Lawyers’ Association (DAJV) had invited participants to “Data Protection – A Transatlantic Dialogue.”
The guest speakers were Prof. Felix Wu, A.B. (Harvard), Ph.D. (Berkeley), J.D. (Berkeley), Professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and Faculty Director of the Cardozo Data Law Initiative, New York, and Julie Wahrendorf, LL.M. (Sydney), Senior Legal Counsel at Google Germany. The speakers and about 70 participants were welcomed by Prof. Dr. Wulf, Dean of Faculty III at the University of Siegen, Dr. Biene, LL.M. (New York), member of the DAJV board, and Prof. Rösler, member of the DAJV board and Director of the IMKR. Dr. Biene and Prof. Rösler founded the International Media Law Forum in 2008 and have organized it ever since.
Prof. Wu’s talk was titled “Narrowing the Gap between European and American Approaches to Privacy.” He began by explaining the European Court of Justice’s “Google Spain” judgment (judgment of May 13, 2014, C-131/12), which established a right to be forgotten. Against this background, Prof. Wu compared the EU Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC of October 24, 1995) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, Regulation (EU) 2016/679) with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1681a, 1681c) and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
The main difference between the U.S. and European approaches to privacy is that U.S. privacy law follows a harm-based approach, while EU law follows a rights-based approach. In the U.S., damage has to occur before compensation can be claimed. In the EU, the right of personality gives rise to a duty of protection. Prof. Wu stressed the importance of keeping the difference between common law and civil law in mind. However, he pointed out that the gap between European and U.S. data protection is not as wide as generally assumed. Using the Fair Credit Reporting Act and COPPA as examples, he showed that the U.S. and European approaches are converging.
Julie Wahrendorf then spoke about the right to be forgotten under the “Google Spain” judgment, which is of central importance for search engine operators. She underlined Google’s commitment to providing free access to searchable information on the internet within the limits of legally permissible search results. At the same time, she stressed that Google is trying to implement the Court’s requirements carefully.
Delisting is only considered where the interests of the person concerned override the public interest in being able to find the information. If, for example, an older press article that is no longer up to date refers to meaningful information, the interests of the person concerned may be outweighed, and the information can remain searchable. In general, the distinction between private individuals and public figures is particularly important. Each case therefore requires its own balancing. So far, Google has received about 98,900 delisting requests concerning roughly 355,000 individual URLs and has granted 47.8 percent of them.
Following the two talks, Prof. Rösler led a lively discussion between the audience and the speakers, focusing on the advantages and disadvantages of the right to be forgotten and of delisting. A reception with snacks and drinks concluded the evening.
Further reading: interview with Prof. Rösler on the right to be forgotten in Legal Tribune Online (in German) and the press release of the University of Siegen (in German).
