The direct answer is no. The GDPR right to be forgotten is a European law. The United States has no federal equivalent, and the structural reasons why it does not exist here go deeper than politics. This guide explains what US law actually says, what partial protections do exist at the state level, why Section 230 blocks most court-based remedies, and what options US residents realistically have when a damaging news article will not go away.
The GDPR right to be forgotten does not apply in the United States. There is no federal equivalent and no state law that grants a right to compel news publishers to remove articles.
The First Amendment and Section 230 form a two-layer shield for US publishers. Constitutional protections for speech and press, combined with federal statutory immunity for online platforms, make court-ordered removal of news content extremely rare.
CCPA covers business-held personal data, not news articles. California's privacy law is sometimes confused with RTBF, but its Right to Delete has explicit carve-outs for journalism and public interest content.
The editorial removal request is the primary realistic path for US residents. Asking the publisher to remove or update the article on journalistic grounds is the option that most often produces results. See the full RTBF guide
When someone in the United States finds a damaging news article about themselves and asks whether they have a legal right to have it removed, the honest answer is that no such federal right exists. The GDPR right to be forgotten, codified in Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation, is a European Union law. It applies to data controllers established in the EU or offering goods and services to EU residents. A US resident reading a US newspaper article about themselves, published by a US outlet, has no avenue to invoke GDPR.
This is not a recent political decision or a regulatory gap that Congress has simply overlooked. It reflects a fundamental difference in how the United States and the European Union balance the competing values of individual privacy and the free flow of information. The EU legal tradition places significant weight on personal dignity and data self-determination. The US legal tradition, shaped by the First Amendment and more than two centuries of case law, treats the free circulation of truthful information as a public good that courts should be very reluctant to suppress, even when that information is embarrassing, outdated, or causes genuine harm to the subject.
The result is a clear structural gap. EU residents have a codified, enforceable right to request removal of personal data from search engines and databases under specific conditions. US residents do not. What US residents have instead is a patchwork of partial protections, voluntary publisher policies, and practical tools that, taken together, offer meaningful but narrower options than their European counterparts.
The right to be forgotten was formally recognized in the EU by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the 2014 Google Spain case, which established that search engines could be required to delist certain results under data protection law. The GDPR subsequently codified this principle in Article 17. In the United States, the Supreme Court has never recognized an equivalent right, and no federal legislation has established one. The closest Congress has come is in narrow, sector-specific laws that cover children's data and certain consumer financial records, not general news content.
Two distinct legal frameworks combine to make court-ordered removal of news content essentially unavailable in the United States. Understanding both is necessary to understand why the options available to US residents look so different from those available to EU residents.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits government actions that abridge freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Courts have interpreted this protection broadly. Prior restraints, meaning court orders that prevent publication or compel removal of content before it can reach the public, are subject to the highest legal scrutiny and are granted only in the most extraordinary circumstances, typically involving imminent national security threats or materials that violate specific narrow categories of law.
A news article about a private individual's lawsuit, arrest, bankruptcy, professional misconduct, or other embarrassing matter is, in US legal terms, a protected expression of fact. Even if that article causes genuine harm to the subject's reputation, career, or personal relationships, courts do not view that harm as sufficient grounds to override the publisher's First Amendment right to publish truthful information about matters of public record. The legal doctrine that comes closest to providing a remedy, defamation law, requires proving that the statement is false, published with the requisite level of fault, and caused specific damages. A truthful article, however damaging, cannot be reached through defamation claims.
Even where state law might theoretically provide some basis for a removal claim, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides a second, statutory barrier. Section 230 grants online publishers and platforms immunity from liability for content they publish or host. This immunity is broad. A platform cannot be treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content and therefore cannot be sued for that content in most circumstances.
Section 230 is a primary structural reason why RTBF-style remedies that work in the EU are largely unavailable through US courts. Even if a US resident could establish a legal theory for removal under some state privacy law, Section 230 would shield the online publisher from any liability that might otherwise compel compliance. Congress specifically intended this immunity to support the development of a robust online information environment, and courts have interpreted it consistently in that direction for three decades. Our guide on publisher protection laws across the US, Canada, UK, and Australia covers how these frameworks compare internationally.
US attorneys who advertise RTBF services or "right to be forgotten" removal through legal action are in most cases referring to voluntary editorial processes, not legally compelled removal. There is no US court that will order a publisher to remove a truthful news article based on privacy or dignity grounds alone. If you have been told otherwise, ask for the specific legal theory and case precedent being relied upon before engaging any legal services.
While no US law grants a right equivalent to the GDPR right to be forgotten for news content, several state laws do provide limited data privacy rights that are sometimes confused with RTBF. Understanding what these laws cover and, equally importantly, what they explicitly exclude is essential for US residents assessing their options.
California's CCPA, effective since 2020 and significantly strengthened by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) in 2023, grants California residents a Right to Delete personal information held by covered businesses. At first glance, this sounds like a right to be forgotten. In practice, it is significantly narrower.
The Right to Delete applies to personal information that a covered business has collected from the consumer. It does not apply to information that the business has a legal basis to retain, and it does not apply to content published for journalistic, editorial, or public interest purposes. A news publisher that has published an article about you has not "collected" your personal information in the CCPA sense. It has published journalism. The CCPA explicitly carves out "information that is deidentified or aggregate consumer information" and information related to "the exercise of free speech, ensure the right of another consumer to exercise his or her right of free speech, or exercise another right provided for by law." Our detailed guide on the CCPA right to delete and news articles covers the California framework in full.
Bottom line on CCPA: it does not give California residents the right to remove news articles. It gives them rights over personal data that businesses hold about them in their capacity as consumers, such as purchase history, browsing data, and contact information held in marketing databases.
As of 2026, more than a dozen US states have enacted comprehensive consumer privacy laws, including Virginia (VCDPA), Colorado (CPA), Connecticut, Texas, Florida, and others. All of them follow a similar pattern to CCPA: they grant rights over personal data held by covered businesses in commercial contexts, and all of them include explicit exemptions for journalistic and public interest content. None of them create a mechanism to compel news publishers to remove published articles.
COPPA, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, protects the online data of children under 13 and imposes strict limits on data collection and retention. COPPA is focused on commercial data practices targeting children, not on news content. It does not create a right to remove news articles involving minors, though separate legal doctrines around juvenile records and the privacy of minors may be relevant in specific circumstances.
Federal law provides narrow privacy protections in specific sectors. HIPAA governs health information held by covered healthcare entities. FERPA governs student educational records. The FCRA governs credit reporting. None of these laws create rights against news publishers. A news article that discusses a person's health condition, educational background, or financial history is not covered by these sector-specific laws, even though the underlying categories of information are sensitive.
US residents sometimes assume that their particular state has stronger privacy protections than others, or that certain states have enacted something closer to RTBF. The following overview addresses the most frequently asked questions by state.
California. CCPA and CPRA represent the strongest consumer data privacy framework in the United States, but the journalism exemption is explicit and robust. The California shield law (California Evidence Code Section 1070) provides additional protections for journalists and their sources. California courts have never ordered a news publisher to remove a truthful article based on privacy grounds.
New York. New York is a strong shield law state with significant protections for journalists and news organizations. New York's Civil Rights Law Sections 50 and 51 prohibit the commercial use of a person's name or likeness without consent, but this applies to advertising and commercial exploitation, not to news reporting. New York has no comprehensive consumer privacy law equivalent to CCPA as of 2026, and no RTBF-equivalent statute.
Texas. Texas enacted the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act (TDPSA) effective 2024, which follows the national pattern of covering commercial data processing with journalism and public interest exemptions. Texas has no RTBF equivalent for news content.
Florida. Florida's Digital Bill of Rights (effective 2024) similarly covers commercial data controllers with significant carve-outs for news publishers. Florida also has a statute that limits access to some arrest records without conviction in specific circumstances, which can be relevant for Google deindexing requests for mugshot-type content, but this is not an RTBF law and does not compel publishers to remove articles.
Virginia, Colorado, and other comprehensive privacy states. All follow the same general pattern. None have enacted anything that functions as a right to be forgotten against news publishers.
The absence of a legal right to compel removal does not mean US residents are without options. Several paths exist, and some of them produce results more reliably than people expect. The key is understanding which options apply to your situation and approaching them in the right order.
US resident with a news article you need addressed? RemoveNews.ai generates your editorial removal request in 60 seconds, targeting the specific grounds most likely to work with your publication. The editorial path is the realistic option for most people.
Generate Your Request NowThe geographic boundary of GDPR is more nuanced than it first appears, and some US residents may have more options than the general framework suggests. Understanding when GDPR might apply to a US resident's situation is important before concluding that no EU-based remedy is available.
GDPR applies to the processing of personal data of individuals who are in the EU, by data controllers or processors established in the EU, or by data controllers or processors not established in the EU who are offering goods or services to individuals in the EU, or monitoring their behavior. This means that a US resident who is also a resident or frequent presence in an EU member state may have GDPR rights. Dual citizens, US residents with a primary residence in an EU country, and individuals who travel extensively in the EU and whose data is being processed in connection with those activities occupy complex legal positions that an attorney with GDPR expertise should evaluate individually.
Separately, if the article is published by a website that is a data controller established in the EU, the website's processing of the subject's personal data may be subject to GDPR regardless of where the subject is located. The critical question is whether the publisher qualifies as a journalistic organization invoking GDPR's journalism exemption under Article 85. Most recognized news organizations do invoke this exemption, and EU data protection authorities have generally respected it. However, smaller websites, aggregators, or non-editorial platforms that republish content may not qualify for the journalism exemption, making GDPR Article 17 requests more viable against those specific destinations.
For content that appears in Google's EU search results, Google operates under the GDPR and has a separate deindexing process for EU search results that is broader than the voluntary process it applies globally. A US resident whose article appears prominently in Google searches conducted from EU countries can request deindexing specifically from Google's EU search index, which may be an option even when the broader right to be forgotten does not apply.
| Situation | RTBF Available? | What Does Apply | Best Path |
|---|---|---|---|
| US resident, article on US-based news site | No | First Amendment protects publisher; Section 230 bars legal compulsion; no federal RTBF law | Editorial removal request; Google deindexing for qualifying content; counter-content strategy |
| California resident, article on US-based news site | No | CCPA Right to Delete covers business-held personal data only; journalism exemption excludes news articles | Same as above; CCPA does not provide additional leverage over news publishers |
| US resident with EU residency or dual citizenship | Possibly | GDPR Article 17 may apply if data controller is EU-based or if subject qualifies as data subject in EU | Consult GDPR attorney; editorial removal request alongside any GDPR filing |
| US resident whose article is on an EU-based website | Limited | GDPR Article 17 applies to EU data controllers; journalism exemption under Article 85 often invoked by news publishers | Submit GDPR Article 17 request; pair with editorial removal request; success depends on journalism exemption applicability |
| Public figure (politician, executive, celebrity) | No | Heightened First Amendment protection for coverage of public figures; defamation requires proving actual malice; even EU RTBF has reduced application to public figures | Counter-content and search suppression; editorial request for corrections of factual errors only; proactive media strategy |
| Private individual with no public role | Limited practical options | Stronger editorial grounds for removal as a private person; Google deindexing for PII content; some publishers have specific policies for private individuals | Editorial removal request citing private individual status; Google PII removal tools; defamation if article contains false statements |
For the vast majority of US residents facing a damaging news article, the editorial removal request is the only realistic option that can produce results. Understanding why publishers sometimes agree to remove or update articles, and how to frame a request that addresses their actual concerns, is the difference between a request that gets ignored and one that succeeds.
News organizations exist to serve the public interest. That mission cuts in both directions. On one hand, it protects publishers' right to publish true information about matters of public concern. On the other hand, it creates editorial obligations around accuracy, proportionality, and relevance over time. A story that accurately reported on a lawsuit settled five years ago may, from a current editorial standpoint, cause ongoing harm to a private individual that is no longer proportionate to any public interest the story serves. Publishers who take their editorial obligations seriously are open to arguments grounded in these journalistic principles.
The grounds that most often succeed in editorial removal requests include: the article contains factual errors that the publisher has not corrected; the underlying matter has been resolved and the article does not reflect the resolution; the subject is a private individual rather than a public figure and the original public interest justification has diminished; the article concerns minor or youthful conduct that is not representative of the subject's current life; or the article includes sensitive personal information such as medical details, sexual history, or immigration status that was included incidentally rather than as the core of the reporting.
What does not work as a removal argument: general embarrassment, the claim that the article is unfair, demands that the publisher simply comply because the subject wants it removed, or legal threats that are not grounded in a viable legal theory. Publishers and their legal teams receive many such requests and are experienced at declining them. A professionally framed request that engages the publication's editorial standards is categorically different from a demand letter.
RemoveNews.ai generates editorial removal requests that are framed in the language of journalism ethics and editorial standards, not legal threats. The process takes 60 seconds. You describe your situation, identify the article, and the platform produces a request calibrated to the specific publication type and the specific grounds most likely to be persuasive in your case. For a full walkthrough of the process, see our complete guide to getting a news article removed.
Ready to take action? Generate a professionally framed editorial removal request in 60 seconds. No legal knowledge required. No obligation to proceed.
Start Your RequestThe GDPR may not apply in the United States, but the editorial path is available to every US resident. Our platform generates professionally framed removal requests that address the grounds publishers actually consider.
Free assessment. Confidential. No obligation.