GOOGLE
CLASSACTION
Legal Advisor
Some members of the Algopolio association, together with other citizens, assisted by lawyers Francesco Dagnino and Silvia Cossu of the LEXIA law firm and by lawyers Prof. Barbara Randazzo and Ruggero Rudoni of the ORALEX law firm, have filed a class action injunction against Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited and Google Italy Srl.
News e Aggiornamenti
Write to us
PRESS REVIEW
Class Action
The class action against Google challenges the systematic rejection of de-indexing and removal requests, through standardized and non-personalized procedures, also adopted in substantial circumvention of specific provisions of the Italian Data Protection Authority.
It's not just about removing isolated links, but about interrupting the systemic mechanism that allows false information to spread and remain accessible for years, transforming insinuations and errors into 'digital truths' that are difficult to erase,” explain the lawyers involved.
Truth is not an opinion.
Search engines, while claiming to be mere intermediaries, claim they have no responsibility for the content. However, each result demonstrates how algorithmic choices can amplify falsehoods, create arbitrary correlations, favor certain sources, and resurface previously debunked information.
This doesn't represent neutrality, but rather information orientation. And when truth is being oriented, we find ourselves faced with a new form of power: unelected, uncontrolled, and potentially decisive.
The right to be forgotten as the last bastion of dignity.
Every person has the right not to be forever defined by a mistake, a suspicion, or a lie.
The European Court of Justice and the Italian Supreme Court have recognized that the right to be forgotten does not erase history, but restores proportion and context.
Google, however, continues to store, index, and repost content that has already been dismissed or archived by the courts, perpetuating a damage that is renewed every day with every search.
When a lie remains online for years, it is no longer information: it is a civil sentence without appeal.
Economic and moral damage: when reputations are destroyed by algorithms.
The individuals involved in this class action have lost contracts, customers, job opportunities, and personal relationships.
Many have suffered profound psychological damage, compounded by the inability to defend themselves from an automated system that neither listens nor responds.
The Milan Court has already recognized in several cases that Google's late de-indexing constitutes a source of compensable damage.
This class action lawsuit seeks an injunction: a judge's order to halt the infringement, de-index fake news, and enforce digital rights.
But it also calls for a moral principle: that dignity not be sacrificed for indexing.
Google ClassAction was born from a group of people who for years have silently fought against a machine that doesn't listen.
Each of them has a different story, but the same pain: being reduced to a link, a page, a prejudice that regenerates itself every time someone types their name .
Behind every indexed fake news , there is a suspended life, a lost job, a distorted identity.
This initiative was born to transform that suffering into civil action, to give victims their voice back and to raise public awareness that the power of algorithms cannot be absolute.
A single search result can determine the fate of an individual or a business.
The class action lawsuit alleges that Google systematically and structurally adopts an illegitimate de-indexing procedure that violates the GDPR and violates the fundamental rights of a very large number of people.
The main violations contested are four:
1. Inability to attach evidence
Google's procedure does not allow submission of documents demonstrating the falsity, outdatedness, or illegality of the content to be de-indexed, effectively nullifying the right to be forgotten.
2. Lack of individualized assessment
The responses are standardized, impersonal, identical, and devoid of any reference to the specific case; Google does not perform any balancing of conflicting rights, as required by Articles 17 and 21 of the GDPR.
3. Lack of motivation and adversarial process
Google does not explain why it rejects requests and does not offer any human contact, suggesting a fully automated process that may violate Article 22 of the GDPR.
4. Failure to completely remove URLs
Google does not remove all linked URLs or equivalent variations, compromising the effectiveness of the right to be forgotten.
These conducts, according to the appeal, are not isolated errors but systematic violations, capable of affecting an indefinite number of citizens, and therefore perfectly suited to a class action.
The first challenged conduct concerns the way the search engine handles all de-indexing requests: through automatic, pre-populated, impersonal responses that are identical for every user, without any concrete analysis of the facts. The procedure is structurally inadequate and violates the individual assessment requirements imposed by the GDPR.
DEINDEXING REQUEST
The second point calls on Google to establish a rapid review and response protocol for all complaints related to false or harmful content. Today, those who suffer digital harm are forced to interact with automated systems that fail to respond, fail to explain, and fail to assume responsibility. The injunction aims to introduce a transparent mechanism, with clear deadlines and reasoned decisions, that guarantees human and verifiable review.
VERIFICATION PROTOCOL
The third point aims to stop the automatic repetition of the damage: Google must no longer allow content already recognized as false or defamatory to be reposted under other domains or links. The algorithm currently tends to replicate and repost duplicate articles, creating an endless chain of negative visibility. The injunction calls for the adoption of preventative technical measures to block this cycle, requiring Google to act diligently and responsibly.
DAMAGE PREVENTION
OUR STORIES
For years, I sent warnings and documents proving the falsehood of those reports. Google never responded. In the meantime, I lost clients, friendships, trust. Every time they searched for my name, that lie came up.
A miscarriage of justice, later dismissed, became my digital calling card. No one read the acquittal, but everyone saw the headline indexed by Google.
The results machine doesn't forget. I do, but the algorithm doesn't. And my life has remained stuck on a link.