“Right to be Forgotten” Requests
"Right to be Forgotten" requests
In May 2014, the European Court of Justice ruled that European residents could ask search engines to filter results for queries that include their name if the results are inadequate, inaccurate, no longer relevant, or excessive. As a result, Microsoft has put procedures in place to ensure we comply in ways that appropriately balance individuals' rights to privacy with the general public's interest in freedom of expression and the free availability of information online. The Right to be Forgotten has since been codified in the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and in various national privacy laws within Europe, including the United Kingdom.
In 2016, amendments to Russia's national data protection law also codified a similar Right to be Forgotten, which requires that search engines filter certain search results for queries that include a Russian applicant's name. The Russian law provides enumerated grounds for removal. It requires that search results be removed if the applicant provides adequate proof in support of the claim, and that we reject requests that do not meet the statutory standard.
"Right to be Forgotten" requests, January 1 – June 30, 2024
Country / Region | Requests received and processed | URLs requested | URLs accepted | URLs rejected | Percentage of URLs accepted |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Austria |
82
|
315
|
66
|
249
|
21%
|
Belgium |
136
|
824
|
385
|
439
|
47%
|
Bulgaria |
4
|
27
|
9
|
18
|
33%
|
Croatia |
60
|
274
|
190
|
84
|
69%
|
Cyprus |
13
|
31
|
6
|
25
|
19%
|
Czech Republic |
5
|
166
|
144
|
22
|
87%
|
Denmark |
58
|
96
|
58
|
38
|
60%
|
Estonia |
72
|
174
|
36
|
138
|
21%
|
Finland |
22
|
62
|
29
|
33
|
47%
|
France |
1,494
|
4,719
|
1,731
|
2,988
|
37%
|
Germany |
1,717
|
9,120
|
2,050
|
7,070
|
22%
|
Greece |
9
|
28
|
8
|
20
|
29%
|
Hungary |
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0%
|
Ireland |
46
|
249
|
109
|
140
|
44%
|
Isle of Man |
3
|
5
|
3
|
2
|
60%
|
Italy |
435
|
1,713
|
887
|
826
|
52%
|
Latvia |
6
|
15
|
7
|
8
|
47%
|
Liechtenstein |
3
|
3
|
3
|
0
|
100%
|
Lithuania |
1
|
7
|
0
|
7
|
0%
|
Luxembourg |
7
|
8
|
3
|
5
|
38%
|
Malta |
44
|
175
|
115
|
60
|
66%
|
Netherlands |
143
|
784
|
354
|
430
|
45%
|
Norway |
83
|
258
|
112
|
146
|
43%
|
Poland |
74
|
306
|
164
|
142
|
54%
|
Portugal |
29
|
181
|
74
|
107
|
41%
|
Romania |
8
|
48
|
32
|
16
|
67%
|
Russia |
5
|
63
|
51
|
12
|
81%
|
Slovakia |
9
|
23
|
18
|
5
|
78%
|
Slovenia |
12
|
87
|
37
|
50
|
43%
|
Spain |
353
|
2,097
|
556
|
1,541
|
27%
|
Sweden |
667
|
1,485
|
815
|
670
|
55%
|
Switzerland |
87
|
305
|
164
|
141
|
54%
|
United Kingdom |
2,818
|
16,062
|
8,873
|
7,189
|
55%
|
Total |
8,506
|
39,711
|
17,089
|
22,622
|
43%
|
Note: This table shows the number of URLs that were accepted and rejected for requests from Europe (including the UK) and from Russia received between January 1 and June 30, 2024, that were processed as of August 15, 2024. The number of URLs accepted and rejected may not reflect requests still pending review as of August 15, 2024. For example, processing delays may result if more information is needed to complete the review on a request.
Cumulative “Right to be forgotten” requests, May 2014 - June 30, 2024
Requests received and processed | URLs requested | URLs accepted | URLs rejected | Percentage of URLs accepted | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total |
78,593
|
289,926
|
138,904
|
151,022
|
48%
|
Note: This table shows the number of URLs that were accepted and rejected for requests from Europe (including the UK) and from Russia received between May 2014 and June 30, 2024, that were processed as of August 15, 2024. The number of URLs accepted and rejected may not reflect requests still pending review as of August 15, 2024. For example, processing delays may result if more information is needed to complete the review on a request.
Download previous “Right to be Forgotten” Request Reports
Note: Reports before H2 2021 are Content Removal Requests Reports, which included “Right to be Forgotten” Requests, Government Requests for Content Removal, and Copyright Removal Requests. Reports available for H2 2021 and later are the “Right to be Forgotten” Requests for Content Removal Reports. If you wish to download Copyright Removal Requests Reports or Government Requests for Content Removal Reports for H2 2021 or later, please visit the corresponding web pages for those reports.
-
Right to be Forgotten Requests Report 2024 (January 1-June 30)
Right to be Forgotten Requests Report 2023 (July-December)
Right to be Forgotten Requests Report 2023 (January-June)
Right to be Forgotten Requests Report 2022 (July-December)
Right to be Forgotten Requests Report 2022 (January-June)
Right to be Forgotten Requests Report 2021 (July-December)
Content Removal Requests Report 2021 (January-June)
Content Removal Requests Report 2020 (July-December)
Content Removal Requests Report 2020 (January-June)
Content Removal Requests Report 2019 (July-December)
Content Removal Requests Report 2019 (January-June)
Content Removal Requests Report 2018 (July-December)
Content Removal Requests Report 2018 (January-June)
Content Removal Requests Report 2017 (July-December)
Content Removal Requests Report 2017 (January-June)
Content Removal Requests Report 2016 (July-December)
Content Removal Requests Report 2016 (January-June)
FAQs
-
The Right to be Forgotten Removal Requests Report contains requests from European residents (including UK residents) or Russian residents to filter search results about them on Bing for queries that include their names pursuant to relevant data protection law governing the Right to be Forgotten.
-
In some countries, individuals can request that search engines remove certain URLs that appear in the results for searches of the requester’s name. This is commonly referred to as the "Right to be Forgotten." Specific data protection laws regarding the Right to be Forgotten in Russia and Europe (including the UK) provide guidelines for determining if a request should be granted for designated individuals. Microsoft provides online forms to easily facilitate the receipt and processing of such requests.
-
Yes, when search results are removed, Bing provides users with notice at the bottom of the relevant search results page. In the case of content that is filtered upon a search of a person’s name in response to a "Right to be Forgotten" request, the notice appears via a link at the bottom of all search results pages in the applicable market(s).
-
If a publisher believes links to content have been removed incorrectly from Bing search results, the publisher may contact Bing with specific information about the URL at issue. We encourage publishers to contact Bing via our Webmaster Tools, which offers many helpful resources to publishers including easy access to our webmaster email support link.
-
In European markets, individuals can request that search engines filter results for queries that include the applicant’s name if the results are inadequate, inaccurate, no longer relevant, or excessive. In accordance with relevant data protection laws, we apply balancing tests seeking to appropriately weigh individuals’ rights to privacy with the public’s interest in freedom of expression and of access to information online. For more details, please see the Bing Help webpage on submitting privacy-related requests to block results in the EU.
For Russia, we follow the January 2016 amendments to Russia’s data protection law. The Russian law provides enumerated grounds for removal and requires that search results be removed if the applicant provides adequate proof in support of the claim. We reject requests that do not meet grounds for removal. For more detail, please see the Bing Help webpage on submitting data protection-related requests to block results for residents of the Russian Federation.
When Microsoft receives any request or demand, we seek to appropriately balance individuals’ rights to privacy with the public’s interest in freedom of expression and of access to information online.
-
No. We rely on each country to designate, by law, the circumstances under which search results must be removed. Because these laws are different, we apply designated criteria and processes that best enable appropriate review and processing under each.