Class Action
A class action is a legal tool that allows multiple people to take action together when they have suffered the same type of damage at the hands of a private or public entity.
It is a form of collective justice that allows similar cases to be combined into a single action, preventing each victim from having to face the costs, time, and complexity of an individual trial alone.
Full Name
Why?
In Italian law, class action suits serve to re-establish the balance between the power of large economic entities and the rights of citizens, guaranteeing effective protection even to those who would not have the strength to act alone.
It can take two forms:
Compensation class action, when financial compensation is sought for the damage suffered.
Class action injunctions, as in the case against Google, are used when a judge is asked to stop unlawful or harmful conduct that continues to produce negative effects.
+350
Class Actions filed in Italy since 2010
+40%
Increase in class actions brought in the EU
+1200
Class actions filed every year in the USA
When
In short, a class action lawsuit is the collective voice of citizens when a private power becomes too great to be countered by any single individual.
It is an instrument of legal civility and democratic balance: a way to remember that even in the digital world, no one is above the law.
As
The current Class Action for an injunction aims to obtain an order from the Court of Milan requiring Google to modify the de-indexing procedure which should oblige Google to carry out a concrete and individualized assessment of the case, examining the specific circumstances, balancing the right to reputation with the freedom of information and clearly motivating any rejection.
We are not asking for compensation, but for a principle: a human interlocutor cannot be missing when evaluating people's rights.
Q&A
Sì. L’azione di classe inibitoria è stata depositata presso il Tribunale di Milano nei confronti di Google LLC, Google IrelandLimited e Google Italy S.r.l. L’iniziativa è stata promossa dagli studi legali LEXIA e OraLex, con il supporto dell’associazione Algopolio.
The goal is to obtain a court order requiring Google to radically overhaul its procedures for handling right-to-be-forgotten requests. It calls for replacing the current system (deemed to be automated, impersonal, and non-compliant with the GDPR) with one that guarantees individual, transparent, and reasoned assessments.
According to the plaintiffs, Google rejects de-indexing requests with standardized responses, lacking a genuine analysis of the specific case, without the option to attach documents, and without personalized justifications. In some cases, the requests were rejected even despite specific provisions from the Italian Data Protection Authority requiring their approval.
The result is a system that fails to adequately protect the right to be forgotten and allows false, obsolete, or harmful content to continue to circulate.The Court will have to decide on the admissibility of the action and the request for an emergency injunction. In the meantime, the promoters will continue to collect applications and documentation. If the application is accepted, Google will be required to immediately adapt its procedure.
Inhibitory actions have a relatively rapid process:
- preliminary evaluation: in the first few months;
- decision on the injunction: on average between 6 and 12 months.
The timeframe depends on the Court's workload and the technical complexity of the matter.
The Court may order Google to:
- immediately stop the contested practices;
- adopt procedures that allow for case-by-case assessments;
- avoid automated or impersonal responses;
- remove not only the individual reported URLs, but all equivalent content (including in other languages, different domains, images, search suggestions);
- ensure that decisions are reasoned, transparent, and GDPR compliant.
It is a structural intervention destined to have lasting effects on all citizens who exercise the right to be forgotten.
In case of acceptance:
· requests for de-indexing must be examined seriously, and not through automatic systems;
· Citizens will be able to obtain clear, reasoned answers based on a correct balance of the rights at stake;
· Situations where content known to be false or defamatory continues to surface in online searches will be avoided.
This is a change that directly impacts the protection of digital dignity.
No.
This is an injunctive action, aimed at stopping the illegality deemed systemic. Any damages actions may be initiated separately.Because every day that harmful content remains online causes new harm. Without individualized assessment, prejudice renews and amplifies, transforming false or outdated information into a sort of "permanent label" that's difficult to remove.
Yes. The Court of Justice of the European Union has repeatedly held that search engines must ensure effective protection of the right to de-referencing and cannot limit themselves to generic or automated responses when fundamental rights such as dignity, honor, and reputation are at stake.
