A United Kingdom businessman has won his legal action to remove search results about his criminal conviction in a landmark "right to be forgotten" case that could have wide-ranging repercussions for Google and other search providers.
The businessman, known as NT2 during legal proceedings, had asked Google to delete links to news articles related to his past.
Passing judgement on the case, Mr Justice Warby said: "It is quite likely that there will be more claims of this kind, and the fact that NT2 has succeeded is likely to reinforce that".
Google refused their request and the men took the company to the high court.
But it did win against another businessman who was fighting against Google at the same time and had committed a more serious offence.
NT2 was imprisoned for six months in the early part of this century after authorizing an investigations firm to conduct computer hacking and phone tapping to find out who was engaged in hostile activity against his company.
Both had ordered Google to remove search results about their convictions, including links to news articles, stating that they were no longer relevant.
The ruling in the case of NT2 means that Google must remove search results relating to the man's convictions - something the judge was happy to rule about because of the remorse that has been shown. "His past offending is of little if any relevance", Justice Warby wrote.
School Board Selects Final 4 State Superintendent Candidates
He'll be paid $1,000 a day, up to $43,000, and will be reimbursed no more than $12,000 in travel and lodging expenses. She started there as a principal at Mount Vernon Elementary before becoming the district's top finance officer.
He spent four years in jail after being convicted for conspiracy to account falsely in the 1990s. The businessman was involved in a multi-million pound fraud.
Under English law created to rehabilitate offenders, those convictions don't have to be disclosed to potential employers and can effectively be ignored. "That held good until the internet and Google's powerful search engine rather undid matters".
They argue that they have a right to be forgotten, but Google bosses disagree.
"At the heart of these cases is the simple question of whether a person's online past should be allowed to follow them around forever - the Court's decision is essential reading in understanding how the "right to be forgotten" operates", said Nick McAleenan, a partner in media and data privacy law at JMW Solicitors.
Google said it would accept the rulings.
The judges said the right to privacy should prevail after laying down a series of benchmarks including impact on work and family life that dictated whether results should be easily available.
"Courts should also consider the context of particular search results". Others, however, expressed concern that the ruling could harm free press and speech rights.