Previous 14 / 14 Next

Pronunciado por la Séptima Sala de la C.A. de Santiago integrada por Ministro Marisol Andrea Rojas M., Ministro Suplente Juan Carlos Silva O. y Fiscal Judicial Clara Isabel Carrasco A. Santiago, veintisiete de octubre de dos mil veinte. En Santiago, a veintisiete de octubre de dos mil veinte, notifiqué en Secretaría por el Estado Diario la resolución precedente. NJQBHXEXTF Este documento tiene firma electrónica y su original puede ser validado en http://verificadoc.pjud.cl o en la tramitación de la causa. A contar del 06 de septiembre de 2020, la hora visualizada corresponde al horario de verano establecido en Chile Continental. Para Chile Insular Occidental, Isla de Pascua e Isla Salas y Gómez restar 2 horas. Para más información consulte http://www.horaoficial.cl

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Abreu v. Google

Case Law

Country

Chile

Country Location

Latitude: -33.37862595454361

Longitude: -70.68408456156871

Country Location (linked Case Law): Chile

Decision Date: Oct 7, 2020

Case Status: In progress

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Dismissed

Keywords

Data Protection and Retention
Defamation / Reputation
Digital Rights
Freedom of Press
Privacy
Right to be Forgotten

Judicial Body: Appellate Court

Court Name: Santiago Court of Appeals

Case Number: 135.543-2020

Case Summary: The Santiago Court of Appeals denied a writ of protection filed by Herval Rossano Abreu Guerrero against Google, Microsoft, Verizon Chile, and Wikimedia Chile that sought deletion of all information related to the sexual abuse allegations against him. Mr. Abreu (Plaintiff) claimed that his “right to be forgotten” was infringed by the search engines since they maintained publications that had stopped being of public relevance after a Criminal Court had dismissed the charges. However, the Court of Appeals determined that the search engines had not infringed the Plaintiff’s rights since the information was neither false nor outdated.

Case Significance: The decision expands freedom of expression by holding that internet search engines are not responsible for the data created by third parties which are protected under the right to freedom of expression and access to information. Nevertheless, by holding that for a violation of constitutional rights and to allow the request for removal of information, the published information must be false or outdated, the Court has opened the door for cases against the search engines seeking enforcement of right to be forgotten, which could eventually contract freedom of expression.

This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.

Related Caselaw (self)

Abreu v. Google

Related Law

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: Jul 3, 2024

Primary Documents

Judgment (in Spanish)
Spanish
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Abreu v. Google

Primary Documents

Notifications