In La Quadrature du Net, we are still analyzing the decision, but it is our impression that : - The analysis on which the Court bases its decision is at best ambiguous, and probably misled. The fact that Google processes data does not allow the Court to disregard the fact that Google does not create nor collect from users the data to which its links give access (the real data that Google collects in DP sense are the user queries). This issue is made a bit complex by the fact that search engine results provide a kind of crossing by juxtaposition of various results. - As mentioned by several on this list, attributing to Google (or any other similar operator) the task to balance the right to information and communication with the right to privacy or data protection assigns to a private party a prerogative of the judiciary. - Finally, the guidance provided by the Court to Google on how to do it and the scope of cases where demands can be formulated to withdraw links is very challengeable : the public interest in information cannot be restricted to information on the rich, powerful or famous, and the idea that "no longer valid information" should be withdrawn from references (links are references) is very worrying. In short, it seems to me that the Court reasoned under influence of emotion and context, rather than with a true rational analysis. But this needs to be confirmed by a more in-depth analysis of the decision. Philippe Aigrain