SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION and process personal data of Peruvian citizens without their consent. Accordingly, Google, through both its local Google Peru S.R.L and its international Google Inc. personalities, was bound by the LPPD as an entity responsible for data processing in Peru. While this conclusion may have been necessary to ensure due protection of the applicant’s rights, accepting the principle that search engine providers are always bound by domestic data protection laws independently of their place of operation could have a negative impact on freedom of expression. As mentioned before, this could lead to search engine providers adapting their global practices to comply with the most strict domestic policies and resort to undesirable self-censorship in order to avoid potential liability. 2. Intermediary Liability The challenge posed by “right to be forgotten” claims is that, insofar as it is not clearly regulated in a statute and—even when it is—de-indexation claims are based on data protection schemes, the involvement of the publisher of the involved information is often deemed not necessary. As it was stated above, this creates the wrong kind of incentives for intermediaries, who are more likely to defer to the demands received rather than defending the rights of users. These incentives have been created—generally—by courts recognizing the “right to be forgotten” claims. Consider, for instance, the case of GC, AF, BH, ED v. National Commission on Informatics and Liberty recided by the CJEU in 2019. The CJEU held in a Preliminary Ruling that the European Union Directive 95/46, which protects the right to privacy with respect to processing sensitive personal data, applied to search engine operators. Four individuals in France brought complaints before the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) to de-indexing links displayed on Google following searches of their names. This included information about their criminal convictions, judicial inquiries, as well as religious and political views. In 2015 and 2016, the CNIL refused to take up their complaints and the four appealed to France’s Conseil d’État (Council of State) against CNIL’s refusal. The Council of State referred to the CJEU questions regarding the processing of sensitive personal data and the obligations of search engine operators. The CJEU found that the processing of personal data by search engines significantly affected privacy rights of those concerned. Data subjects could request de-indexing of such personal data and when assessing them search engine operators had to strike a balance between privacy rights of data subjects and the rights of Internet users potentially interested in that information. In Argentina, the Supreme Court settled a long dispute in lower courts in a case in which a famous model sued search engines for linking her name to disreputable websites. In the Rodríguez c. Google case, the Supreme Court established a limited liability rule to deal with content produced by third parties. It considered that, in cases where content is clearly illegal (for instance, cases of child sexual exploitation or contents that facilitate or incite crimes), intermediaries should act to remove that content upon private notification, and could be liable if they fail 12