SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION forgotten”, it ultimately held that the actress’ right to privacy deserved protection. This was especially so following the clear and immediate effect on, and irreparable harm to, her personal and professional life, when the videos depicting her in a sexual nature had been circulated against her will. 3. Privacy Often, claims on the so-called “right to be forgotten” might be based on privacy concerns. A handful of decisions discuss privacy claims made in clearly public interest contexts. For instance, in Nelson Curi et al v. Globo Comunicação e Participações SA, the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court refused to recognize such a right in the context of a claim made by the family of a woman who was murdered in 1958 and who questioned the use of her image and old footage in a television program. The Court, however, held that a general and abstract “right to be forgotten” would be an excessive and authoritarian restriction of the right to freedom of expression and information. Similarly, in D. Segundo v. Google, the Supreme Court of Spain considered that complaints issued against a realtor—Mr. Segundo—in the online platform Ripoff Report and Complaints Board were protected speech. For the Court, while the publication mainly referred to Mr. Segundo’s professional life, its content was of public interest; society and the website users had the interest of obtaining information on the quality of the services provided by the real estate agency directed by Mr. Segundo. Moreover, the Court ruled that the information published was not obsolete, since further information on the allegations against Mr. Segundo had been uploaded by other users with similar concerns. Taking into consideration that the case concerned the right to freedom of expression rather than the right to access information, the Court dismissed the appeal by ruling that Google had sufficiently justified that the nature of the publications presented an interest for potential users. The Court reached a similar conclusion in the D. Dionisio v. Google case of 2020, where a de-indexation request issued by a director of a high market value enterprise who was the subject of a criminal investigation for alleged illicit espionage activities within the enterprise asked Google to remove links to digital articles documenting the accusation in the papers El País and El Confidencial. The Court considered that such information presented a clear public interest for society; particularly, that of being informed on the alleged illegal practices of the director of a high market value enterprise. Even if the applicant had been acquitted of all charges, and considering the scarce lapse of time since the allegations were made, the Court considered that in this case the right to information prevailed over the “right to be forgotten”. In The Case of Mrs. B, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany held that the Higher Regional Court properly balanced the rights of the complainant, Google and the German broadcaster NDR when it rejected the claimant’s request to have a six-year old article about her de-indexed. In 2010, the complainant, Mrs. B, gave an interview to NDR which was featured in a segment of its TV show Panorama titled “Dismissal: the dirty practices of employers”. The NDR later uploaded a transcript of the segment to its website which was displayed among the top search results when the complainant’s name was typed into Google. Mrs. B. brought an action to 14