Art. 17 GDPR – Right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’)
Art. 17(1)
The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay and the controller shall have the obligation to erase personal data without undue delay where one of the following grounds applies:
The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay and the controller shall have the obligation to erase personal data without undue delay where one of the following grounds applies:
(a) the personal data are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which they were collected or otherwise processed. No longer necessary
(b) the data subject withdraws consent on which the processing is based according to point (a) of Article 6(1), or point (a) of Article 9(2), and where there is no other legal ground for the processing. Consent withdrawn
(c) the data subject objects to the processing pursuant to Article 21(1) and there are no overriding legitimate grounds for the processing, or the data subject objects pursuant to Article 21(2). Objection
(d) the personal data have been unlawfully processed. Unlawful processing
(e) the personal data have to be erased for compliance with a legal obligation in Union or Member State law to which the controller is subject. Legal obligation
(f) the personal data have been collected in relation to the offer of information society services referred to in Article 8(1). Child’s consent
Art. 17(2)
Where the controller has made the personal data public and is obliged pursuant to paragraph 1 to erase it, the controller, taking account of available technology and cost of implementation, shall take reasonable steps, including technical measures, to inform controllers processing the data that the data subject has requested erasure of any links to, copy of, or replication of those personal data.
Where the controller has made the personal data public and is obliged pursuant to paragraph 1 to erase it, the controller, taking account of available technology and cost of implementation, shall take reasonable steps, including technical measures, to inform controllers processing the data that the data subject has requested erasure of any links to, copy of, or replication of those personal data.
Art. 17(3)
Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to the extent that processing is necessary:
Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to the extent that processing is necessary:
(a) for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information. Freedom of expression
(b) for compliance with a legal obligation, or for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller. Legal obligation or public task
(c) for reasons of public interest in the area of public health in accordance with Article 9(2)(h),(i) and Article 9(3). Public health
(d) for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes, or statistical purposes under Article 89(1), insofar as erasure is likely to render impossible or seriously impair those objectives. Archiving or research
(e) for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims. Legal claims
In short
Article 17 gives individuals the right to have their personal data erased in defined circumstances, most commonly when it’s no longer needed, consent is withdrawn, or processing was unlawful. It isn’t absolute, since five exceptions let a controller refuse, from freedom of expression to legal claims. Getting the exceptions wrong in either direction, by refusing a valid request or erasing data the company was still entitled to keep, is what tends to draw regulatory attention.
Article 17 gives individuals the right to have their personal data erased in defined circumstances, most commonly when it’s no longer needed, consent is withdrawn, or processing was unlawful. It isn’t absolute, since five exceptions let a controller refuse, from freedom of expression to legal claims. Getting the exceptions wrong in either direction, by refusing a valid request or erasing data the company was still entitled to keep, is what tends to draw regulatory attention.
| Chapter | Chapter 3, Rights of the data subject (Art. 12 to 23) |
|---|---|
| Applies to | Every controller processing personal data of an identifiable individual in the EU/EEA |
| Maximum fine | €20.000.000 or 4% of worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher (Art. 83(5)(b)) |
| In force since | 25 May 2018 |
| Explained by recitals | 65, 66 |
| Closest UK equivalent | UK GDPR Art. 17 (identical wording) |
When Can a Controller Refuse an Erasure Request?
Article 17 is one of the most frequently exercised, and most commonly mishandled, data subject rights. A refusal is only valid if it maps to a specific Art. 17(3) exception:
| Situation | Can the controller refuse? |
|---|---|
| Data is still needed for the original purpose it was collected for | Yes, refusal is valid |
| Data is needed to comply with a legal retention obligation, for example tax records | Yes, refusal is valid |
| Data is needed to establish, exercise, or defend a legal claim | Yes, refusal is valid |
| Journalistic or archival content protected by freedom of expression | Yes, refusal is valid |
| Individual simply changed their mind about a lawful, ongoing service | No, not a ground on its own unless another Art. 17(1) ground applies |
| Data was unlawfully processed in the first place | No, it must be erased |
What Does Complying With an Erasure Request Actually Involve?
- Confirm which Art. 17(1) ground applies before acting either way. A blanket policy of never deleting data is not compliant
- If the data was made public, take reasonable steps to inform other controllers processing copies of it or links to it (Art. 17(2))
- Respond within one month (Art. 12(3)), extendable by two months for complex requests, with a clear explanation either way
- Refusing a request requires citing a specific Art. 17(3) exception rather than internal discretion
- Track downstream processors and copies. Erasure isn’t complete if a backup, processor, or cached copy still exists
GDPR Article 17 Fines: Enforcement Cases and Amounts
Article 17 failures rarely headline on their own. They tend to surface as one finding within a broader decision about how a company handles data subject rights generally.
| Organisation | Authority | Date | Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMY (Sweden) | Mar 2020 | SEK 75.000.000 (approx. €7.000.000) | |
| Carrefour France | CNIL (France) | Nov 2020 | €2.250.000 |
All Article 17 enforcement cases →
Recitals That Explain Article 17
Recital 65, Right of Rectification and Erasure
Explains the grounds for erasure, including when data is no longer needed, consent is withdrawn, or an objection succeeds, and situates the right alongside the right to rectification.
Recital 66, Right to Be Forgotten
Extends the erasure obligation to publicly available data, directing controllers to take reasonable steps, including technical measures, to inform other controllers processing that data, taking available technology and cost into account.
Article 17 Compliance Checklist
- Build a documented process for logging, evaluating, and responding to erasure requests within one month
- Map which Art. 17(1) ground and, if refusing, which Art. 17(3) exception applies before responding
- Include downstream processors and any publicly posted copies in the erasure scope, not just the primary system
- Request additional identity verification only where there is genuine doubt about who is asking, rather than as a routine step for every request
- Track response time performance, since a spike in request volume does not excuse missed deadlines even though corrective measures taken afterward can still count in a company’s favour
- Distinguish erasure from anonymisation or access restriction, since they are not automatically the same thing
Frequently Asked Questions about Article 17
+ What is the right to be forgotten under the GDPR?
Article 17 gives individuals the right to have their personal data erased in certain circumstances, such as when the data is no longer needed, consent is withdrawn, or processing was unlawful.
+Is the right to erasure absolute under the GDPR?
No. Erasure can be refused where processing is necessary for freedom of expression, legal obligations, public health, archiving in the public interest, or the establishment of legal claims.
+ When can a company refuse a deletion request?
A controller can refuse erasure where it still has a valid legal basis or obligation to keep the data, for example to comply with law or to defend legal claims.
+ Does erasure mean the data has to be physically destroyed?
Not necessarily by one specific method, but the data must be effectively and irreversibly removed. Regulators have found that anonymising or restricting access, without rendering the data truly unidentifiable, does not satisfy Article 17.
+ How is Article 17 different from Article 21’s right to object?
Article 21 lets someone object to processing in the first place, particularly for direct marketing or legitimate interest processing. A successful objection under Art. 21 is itself one of the six grounds that then triggers the Art. 17 erasure obligation.