In many cases, the controversies that are initiated in the social arena spill to the courts in the form of a demand for the protection and respect of a determined right. One of the methods of mapping these controversies is looking for court cases, in which there is a conflict of interest between the plaintiff and the defendant. By looking at the court cases we can map the controversies that have shown up as well as indicate the position of the court towards this specific conflict of interest in many cases. Moreover, court cases sometimes create precedents, that means, they can impact the law and result in amendments or modifications of current legislation. The cases cover many different topics. For the purposes of methodology, the present research has looked for cases that have been related within two specific databases. On what concerns articles published in an academic format, the database used for this research was “Scopus” and in the matter of press communication articles the database used for this research was “Europresse”. In both of them, our team has looked for different combinations of keywords that were somewhat related to data protection and privacy. Bringing both researches together, the view from the academia and from the press, we can have a better overview to map what’s been debated. We have covered 11 court cases more detailed and have covered key concepts such as right to be forgotten, right to privacy, etc. Please use this timeline to learn more about them.

The presented cases give an overview of what has happened and what is going on in the courts. There are still many others that can be found. There isn’t just one recipe to solve a court demand. The context of the cases is unique and help to enrich the discussions related to data protection and privacy. From the Court, we learn that the principles have many applications and interpretations and how complex the whole controversy is. Moreover, court decisions contribute to the redefinitions of key concepts such as right to be forgotten; right to access; right to privacy; and freedom of expression. The fact that the demands for the protection of rights keep showing up at least proves that the debate on data protection and privacy isn’t only theoretical, it has serious consequences and it may be closer to us than we would believe.

BATES, Stephen. ( The Prostitute, the Prodigy, and the Private Past. Communication Law and Policy: 2012, v. 17, n. 2, p. 175.

BARTOLINI, Cesare; SIRY, Lawrence. The right to be forgotten in the light of the consent of the data subject. Computer Law & Security Review: 2016, n. 32, p. 218-237.

BRUNETTE, Robert A. Rehabilitation, Privacy and Freedom of the Press—Striking a New Balance: Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest Association, 5 Loy. L. A. L. Rev. 544, 588: 1972.

DIEHL, Kevin A. Can the U.S. government legally monitor private communications? If so, given the U.S.'s significant protection of privacy rights, what government cannot? Journal of Public Affairs: 2017, v. 17, n. 3.

FRANTZIOU, Eleni. Further Developments in the Right to be Forgotten: The European Court of Justice’s Judgement in Case C-131/12, Google Spain, SL, Google Inc v Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos. Human Rights Law Review: 2014, 14, 761-777.

GIBBS, Samuel. Landmark ECJ data protection ruling could impact Facebook and Google. The Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo>. Accessed in 22 oct 2017.

GRESSIN, Seena. The Equifax Data Breach: What to do. Federal Trade Commission. Available at: <https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2017/09/equifax-data-breach-what-do>. Accessed in 22 oct 2017.

HOROWITZ, Julia. Massachusetts will hit Equifax with first state lawsuit over data breach. Available at: <http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/12/news/equifax-lawsuit-massachusetts/index.html>. Accessed in 22 oct 2017.

IEVDOKYMOVA, Iryna. ACTA and the Enforcement of Copyright in Cyberspace: the Impact on Privacy. European Law Journal: 2013, v. 19, n. 6, p. 759-778.

INGRAM, David. NSA sued by Wikimedia, rights groups over mass surveillance. Reuters. Available at: <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nsa-wikipedia/nsa-sued-by-wikimedia-rights-groups-over-mass-surveillance-idUSKBN0M60YA20150310>. Accessed in 22 oct 2017.

KERR, Orin. Supreme Court agrees to hear ‘Carpenter v. United States’, the Fourth Amendment historical cell-site case. The Washington Post: 2017. Available at: <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/05/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-carpenter-v-united-states-the-fourth-amendment-historical-cell-site-case/?utm_term=.1da61a20e41c>. Accessed in 23 oct 2017.

KHARPAL, Arjun. Apple vs FBI: All you need to know. CNBC. Available at: <https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/apple-vs-fbi-all-you-need-to-know.html>. Accessed in 22 oct 2017.

MANTELERO, Alessandro. The EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation and the roots of the ‘right to be forgotten’. Computer Law & Security Review, v. 29, n. 3, p. 229-235.

O’BRIEN, Kevin. Law Students in Austria Challenge Facebook Privacy Policy. The New York Times. Available at: <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/technology/austrian-group-plans-court-challenge-to-facebooks-privacy-policies.html>. Accessed in 22 oct 2017.

OJANEN, Tuomas. Making the Essence of Fundamental Rights Real: The Court of Justice of the European Union Clarifies the Structure of Fundamental Rights under the Charter. European Constitutional Law Review: 2012, 12, p. 318-329.

PAULSON, Michelle. ROGERS, Jacob. Victory in Germany: court rules in favor of the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikimedia. Available at: <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/24/victory-germany-court-ruling/>. Accessed in 22 oct 2017.

Registrar of the Court. European Court of Human Rights – Press Release. French crime database system in breach of Convention for storing information on individuals against whom proceedings have been dropped. Available in: <http://www.statewatch.org/news/2014/sep/echr-france-judgment-brunet-v-France-storage-of-information-on-crime-database.pdf>. Accessed in 22 oct 2017.

SAFI, Michael. Indian court rules privacy a ‘fundamental right’ in battle over national ID cards. The Guardian: 2017. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/24/indian-court-rules-privacy-a-fundamental-right-in-battle-over-national-id-cards>. Accessed in 22 oct 2017.

STACEY, Kiran. India supreme court deals blow to biometric ID system. Financial Times: 2017. Available at: <https://www.ft.com/content/473c8532-888f-11e7-bf50-e1c239b45787?mhq5j=e5>. Accessed in 22 oct 2017.

WALKER, Robert Kirk. The Right to be Forgotten, Hastings Law Journal: 2012, v. 64, p. 257.