Google Delisting Requests: What the Milan Court Ruling Changes, Article on Agenda Digitale

by Maria Sole Montagna and Fulvio Sarzana di S. Ippolito, Attorneys, Sarzana & Partners Law Firm

In short. The Milan court has ordered Google to change how it handles Google delisting requests: the forms must let users attach documents, and every refusal must be reasoned on what the user submitted. The deadline for compliance is 15 November 2026. This account relies on the press release issued by the claimants on 5 October 2026, not on the full text of the order.

An article by Maria Sole Montagna and Fulvio Sarzana, published on Agenda Digitale on 6 October 2026 (in Italian), reconstructs the decision and explains how to prepare Google delisting requests.

The collective action against Google

The action was started in November 2025 by some members of the association Algopolio, together with other claimants, against Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited and Google Italy S.r.l. The claimants challenged procedures they saw as standardised and not tailored to the individual case. The aim included the mechanism through which users present their case and receive an answer, besides the removal of single search results.

The tool is the collective injunction action of Article 840-sexiesdecies of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, introduced by Law 31/2019. It asks for an end to conduct that harms a group of people. Unlike the collective damages action of Article 840-bis, it corrects a procedure and does not award individual damages.

According to the press release, the court rejected the objection of lack of jurisdiction raised by Google LLC and issued the order against it as well. The reasons for Italian jurisdiction require reading the order itself.

What changes for Google delisting requests

According to the press release, the court imposed two measures on Google:

• change its procedures and forms, so that users can attach documents supporting their requests;
• give reasons for refusals based on the assessment of the documents submitted, so that the person concerned understands why.

The deadline is 15 November 2026. The press release also mentions a financial consequence for each day of delay, without stating the amount. Its nature and how it applies need to be checked in the order, and it should not be confused with an administrative fine under the GDPR.

Users will be able to document their requests and understand why a request is refused. The outcome remains a case-by-case balancing exercise.

GDPR, balancing and EU case law

Delisting removes certain links from search engine results, in particular for searches associated with the person’s name. The original page stays online.

Article 17 of the GDPR, paragraph 1(c), provides for erasure when the person objects to the processing under Article 21 and there are no overriding legitimate grounds. Paragraph 3(a) preserves freedom of expression and information. The court therefore weighs, in the concrete case, the protection of the person against the public interest in finding the news.

Article 12 sets an ordinary deadline of 1 month, extendable by another 2 months for the complexity and number of requests. The extension must be communicated within the first month. If the controller does not act on the request, it must explain why and point to the possibility of a complaint to the supervisory authority or a court action.

Three judgments of the Court of Justice of the EU frame the issue:

• Google Spain (C-131/12, 13 May 2014): the search engine operator is a controller and may have to delist links even when publication on the original page is lawful;
• GC and Others (C-136/17, 24 September 2019): special categories of data and information on criminal proceedings require a specific assessment that takes into account the person’s current situation;
• TU and RE v Google (C-460/20, 8 December 2022): a person who bases a request on the inaccuracy of information must provide relevant and sufficient evidence of manifest inaccuracy, without first having to obtain a court decision against the publisher.

The last judgment is the closest to the issue of attachments: being able to produce documents matters when the outcome depends on the evidence supplied by the person.

How to prepare Google delisting requests

With the option to attach documents, a clear file is needed, readable by someone who does not know the story. Google delisting requests should state:

• the exact URLs, including republications and variants;
• the name and the searches through which the results appear;
• the grounds of the request and their link to the GDPR conditions;
• the relevant documents: judgments, decisions to close an investigation, corrections, decisions of the Italian data protection authority (Garante);
• the elements for the balancing test: time elapsed, the person’s public role, how current the information is, the nature of the data;
• proof of sending and the replies received.

An acquittal does not lead to delisting automatically. It weighs on the assessment of accuracy, currency and present interest in the news. Example: a professional who was acquitted lists the links to the articles on the investigation, attaches the judgment with proof that it is final, and explains whether the results give an incomplete or outdated picture.

Generic requests, with no URLs or grounds, should be avoided. Keep the documents sent, the proof of sending and the reply. A refusal that ignores the elements submitted can be challenged for lack of reasoning. A complaint to the Garante (Article 77 GDPR) and an action before the court (Article 79) remain available. For the same subject matter and the same parties, the alternative-remedies rule of Article 140-bis of the Italian Privacy Code applies. The 15 November deadline does not rule out Google changing its forms earlier.

Open questions

Three points remain to be checked.

• Implementation of the forms: how they will change, which documents can be sent, how replies will be worded.
• The degree of individualisation: the press release, quoting the claimants’ lawyers, speaks of procedures that are «individualised, not automated». Without the text of the order, this formula cannot be read as a general ban on automated support tools.
• Territorial reach: the press release gives the decision European relevance, but that alone does not show that the order applies in the same way to all users in the Union. The question is separate from the geographic scope of delisting decided in Google v CNIL (C-507/17, 24 September 2019).

The effectiveness of the right to be forgotten also depends on being able to present one’s case in full and to understand why a request is refused. On the topic, see also the firm’s earlier pieces on the right to be forgotten and delisting and on the right to be forgotten (both in Italian).

Frequently asked questions on Google delisting requests

For the full analysis, see the article on Agenda Digitale (in Italian).