MR JUSTICE WARBY Approved Judgment NT1 & NT2 v Google LLC Data protection 52. The claimant contends that by operating its Search facility in such a way as to return the offending URLs Google acts as the data controller of information that is personal data relating to the claimant, and is processing such personal data within the meaning of the Directive and DPA. Accordingly, says the claimant, Google owes him the statutory duty provided for in s 4(4) of the DPA. 53. Google admits that its presentation of search results as a consequence of a search being carried out on the name of the data subject involves the processing of personal data of which it is the data controller, and that it owes this statutory duty in respect of such processing. Google makes no admissions in respect of any operations prior to presentation of search results, such as finding or indexing information. For the purposes of this action, and the claim of NT2, it is unnecessary to go further. Nor is it necessary to determine an issue raised by Google as to when its activities involve the processing of sensitive personal data. Google admits that the offending URLs contain information that falls within the categories of sensitive personal data mentioned above, and that its post-notification activities involve the processing of such data. Subject to an issue I shall come to, concerning the Journalism Exemption, Google accepts that upon receipt of a delisting request it is obliged to conduct the balancing exercise prescribed by Google Spain. As already noted, the issue that did arise as to the formal or substantive validity of NT1’s original request under s 10 of the DPA has fallen away. 54. The main issues as to liability in relation to the data protection claims can be defined under two heads as follows: (1) “The Inaccuracy Issues”. Is there information in any of the three third-party publications which is inaccurate, in breach of the Fourth Data Protection Principle, in a way or to an extent that requires or should lead the Court to grant the blocking, erasure and injunctive remedies sought? (2) “The Privacy Issues”. The arguments give rise to four inter-related questions, which it will be convenient to consider in the following order: a) Is Google entitled to rely on the Journalism Exemption? (“the Exemption Issue”) b) At what point in the legal analysis should the Court assess the compatibility of Google’s processing of the offending links with the principles in Google Spain (“the Structure Issue”)? There are three competing arguments on this question. c) Does Google’s processing comply with its obligations under DPA s 4(4) (“the DPA Compliance Issue”)? d) Does Google’s processing comply with the requirements of Google Spain (“The Google Spain Issue”)?