(Photo : Flickr)

Advertisement

Like Us on Facebook

Google plans to make its operations completely dependent on solar energy by 2017.

The Japanese Supreme Court dismissed four cases against the tech company Google which had sought the removal of allegedly defamatory comments in its Google Maps service. 

The case drew parallels with Europe's "right to be forgotten" ruling which had asked internet companies to remove personal information from search engine results. This time, however, Google won the right to maintain the comments on its service.

The "right to be forgotten" is a term coined by a European Union court in 2014. According to it, the Europeans can request the information which is "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive" be removed from a search engine, reports Mashable.

The four cases, including one high-profile case involving a medical clinic, are troubling because the comments in question appeared to be legitimate, reports TechCrunch. In April 2015, the Chiba District Court had made a ruling that Google must delete the comments against which, the search giant appealed the decision which has now prevailed.

While there are similarities between Japan's and Europe's "right to be forgotten" ruling, the legal cases are not exactly the same. In the Europe's case, the issues centred around the freedom of individuals, but in Japan, the suits against Google were brought by a small number of plaintiffs that included both businesses and individuals.

In a statement with TechCrunch, Google said that they are pleased that with these latest rulings of the Supreme Court which it has unanimously recognised based on existing privacy and defamation laws - that any decision to delete information from search results should prioritize the public's right to information.

The U.S. tech giant had previously argued against the removals, saying that they did not violate its terms but served an important purpose for the public. In 2015, Google had made a statement saying that while they provide tools that allow business owners to respond to reviews and take down posts that violate our policies, they believe that tools like online reviews (both positive and negative) are critical for people to give and read direct feedback about businesses.