The Right to Be Forgotten and De-Indexing: Limits on Erasing Your Past Online

This page is a translation of the original Portuguese text, provided for convenience. It deals with Brazilian law. If there is any discrepancy, the Portuguese version prevails. Read the original in Portuguese

Wanting to erase an old episode from the internet runs into a set of rules that treat very different situations differently. Taking content offline, removing it only from search results, and demanding that it be updated are separate requests, each with its own legal basis, reach and likelihood of success. Brazilian courts have been defining how far each one can go without stifling freedom of information.

Removal, De-Indexing and Updating: Three Different Requests

People who ask about old online content usually sum it up in one sentence: “I want this off the internet.” Behind that sentence, however, are three distinct legal claims, each with its own requirements. Confusing them is the main reason requests are poorly framed and rulings go the wrong way.

The first is removal: taking the content down at its source, meaning the news portal, blog or social network that published it. This is the most drastic measure, because it eliminates the information at the source and not just the path leading to it. For that reason, it requires a strong basis, usually that the material is unlawful, that it is false, or that it directly violates a personality right (a right tied to a person’s honor, image and privacy).

The second is de-indexing. Here the content stays intact on the original site, but search engines stop displaying it when someone searches for the person’s name. The information still exists and can be reached by other routes; it simply loses the visibility that a name search gave it. It is a middle ground between preserving the record and reducing disproportionate exposure.

The third is updating, or adding context. Nothing is removed or hidden. Instead, you require that accurate information be completed with relevant later facts. The classic example is a news story about a criminal accusation that does not mention the acquittal that came years later. Updating corrects the distortion without erasing the history.

What the Supreme Court Decided About the Right to Be Forgotten

The most important landmark on this subject in Brazil is the judgment of Extraordinary Appeal 1.010.606 (Topic 786), concluded by the Supremo Tribunal Federal (Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court) in 2021. The Court established the thesis that the idea of a right to be forgotten is incompatible with the Constitution, understood as the power to block, merely because time has passed, the disclosure of true facts that were lawfully obtained and published.

The decision does not mean you are left defenseless against content that harms you. What the Court rejected was an automatic right of erasure based solely on the passage of time. Abuses in the exercise of freedom of expression remain subject to control, but they are examined case by case, under the established standards of civil liability and the protection of honor, image and privacy.

In practice, this shifts the focus. It is not enough to claim that the fact is old or embarrassing. You must show a concrete defect: falsity, unlawful acquisition, the absence of current public interest, or disproportionate exposure that no longer has any informational justification.

The passage of time alone does not authorize erasing true facts that were lawfully disclosed.

This position moves Brazilian law toward a logic of concrete balancing and away from generic solutions that would treat all old information as disposable. As a result, each request has to be built on specific circumstances, not on a single formula that fits every case. That is why it matters to gather, from the start, the evidence showing why that particular content goes beyond what freedom of information legitimately protects, rather than betting on generic arguments about how much time has passed.

The Role of the LGPD in Controlling Personal Data

The Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados (LGPD, Brazil’s General Data Protection Law), in force since 2020, reshaped part of this discussion by addressing the data subject’s control over personal data. Among the rights it provides is the right to request deletion of data processed on the basis of consent when that consent is withdrawn, as well as the correction of incomplete, inaccurate or outdated information.

This tool is powerful for registries, profiles and databases, but it has clear limits. The law itself carves out processing carried out exclusively for journalistic, artistic or academic purposes, which protects the news media and speaks directly to the freedom of information recognized by the Constitution.

There are also situations in which retaining the data is mandatory by law or necessary to meet legal and regulatory obligations. In those cases, a deletion request meets a legitimate barrier, and the appropriate strategy shifts from removal to correcting or updating the record.

For that reason, the LGPD works better as a fine-tuning tool than as a shortcut to broad erasure. It lets you demand accuracy and a legitimate purpose in processing, but it does not, by itself, guarantee the deletion of a fact that was lawfully reported. Understanding this distinction avoids mistaken expectations and helps you choose, starting with the administrative request, the legal basis most likely to succeed with each provider or platform.

How Courts Balance Privacy and Freedom of Information

The balance between protecting the individual and preserving access to information is not resolved by a fixed rule, but by criteria applied to the specific case. Among the factors commonly weighed are the truthfulness of the content, the lawfulness of how it was obtained, current public interest, whether the person involved is a public or private figure, and the degree of exposure caused.

As for search engines, the prevailing view is that they cannot be required to filter results in advance in a generic way, since they merely organize content that others have published. De-indexing requests tend to succeed when the person shows disproportionate exposure and no informational interest that would justify permanently tying their name to the episode.

On removal, the Marco Civil da Internet (Brazil’s Internet Civil Framework) established, as a general rule, that an application provider is liable for third-party content only if it fails to comply with a specific court order to take it down. This structure aims to prevent private censorship by leaving it to the courts to decide whether the challenged material is unlawful.

For anyone who has been harmed, a strategic reading of these standards usually points the way. When the fact is true and of public interest, updating or de-indexing tends to be more viable than complete removal. When there is falsehood, doctored material or a clear violation of privacy, there is room for more forceful claims, including claims for damages.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a right to be forgotten in Brazil?

Not as an automatic right to erase old facts. The Supremo Tribunal Federal rejected the idea of a right to be forgotten based solely on the passage of time. What remains is the possibility of challenging specific content when it is false, unlawful, lacks current public interest, or involves disproportionate exposure, always through an individualized analysis of the circumstances.

What is the difference between taking content offline and removing it from search?

Taking content offline means removing the material at the source that published it, which eliminates the information. Removing it from search, or de-indexing, leaves the content on the original site but keeps it from appearing in results when someone searches for the person’s name. De-indexing reduces exposure without erasing the record, which is why it usually meets less resistance.

Does the LGPD allow you to demand removal of an unfavorable news story?

As a rule, no. The LGPD ensures the deletion of data processed on the basis of consent and the correction of inaccurate or outdated information, but it expressly exempts processing for journalistic purposes. When a news story is lawful, the most consistent path is usually to seek an update or added context for the information, not its outright erasure.

As informações deste artigo são de caráter informativo e não substituem consulta jurídica individualizada. Cada caso possui particularidades que exigem análise específica.