Case 8: Google and the Right to be Forgotten

Synopsis of the case: This executive summary describes how a Spanish attorney conducted a Google search and discovered disturbing results, afraid that they might destroy his firm and career. This overview concentrates on Mario Costeja Gonzales and Google, Inc. Briefly, Mr. Costeja Gonzales contacted the publication that carried the web piece and requested that it be withdrawn, explaining his predicament. Importantly, the attorney did not want any of his personal information to be exposed to readers or the general public, exercising his right under Spain's Data Protection Act. However, the media company dismissed the request on the grounds that the material was gathered and published lawfully.

Decision the Organization Faced: The laws that applied in Spain did not apply in the United States, notably The Right to be Forgotten statute that Mr. Costeja Gonzales wished to challenge, due to the fact that the nations' legal systems were and are distinct. Mr. Costeja Gonzales was left with few choices, yet he chose to sue Google Inc. He sought out to the Spanish Data Protection Agency (SDPA) in the hopes that they could assist him. He requested that La Vanguardia be required to withdraw or remove particular portions of the story that was published in the newspaper, or that the company participate in measures that would secure his given information. In addition, he requested that the DSPA group request that Google Inc. remove any information that connects back to him; by doing so, the given information would no longer be accessible when someone searches for the associated criteria. Unfortunately, La Vanguardia was never ordered to totally delete the story, as all of the material acquired and published was done so legally. According to the court records, Google was requested to take "all reasonable efforts to erase the challenged personal data from its index and prevent further access."In brief, Google filed an appeal, and the European Court of Justice was selected to hear the case. Google resented a compelling and factual case, but in 2014 the courts decided against the multinational firm. Due to the inaccessibility of the link, Google was able to remove the content, but this had no effect on the accessibility of the material.

(Give an introduction for Google)

1. Current Situation
   1. What is the Current Performance of Google?
   2. Strategic Posture
      1. Mission: describe Google's mission
      2. Objective: describe Google's objectives
      3. Strategies: describe Google's strategies
      4. Policies: describe Google's two policies.
2. Strategic Managers
   1. Board of Directors: describe Google's Board of Directors and their impact on the company.
   2. Top Management: describe at least three top management and their impact on the company.
3. Internal Environment
   1. Corporate Structure: describe two of Google's corporate structure
   2. Corporate Culture: describe three of Google's corporate culture
   3. Corporate Resources: describe three of Google's corporate resources