Right to Be Forgotten in 2026: What the Laws Actually Allow (EU vs U.S.)

In the first days after a death, families are asked to make decisions that are both deeply personal and unexpectedly public. A name appears online. An obituary is shared. A memorial page is created. And sometimes—especially when the circumstances are complicated, or when a family simply wants privacy—the question becomes practical and urgent: what can we realistically remove, and what is likely to stay online no matter how many requests we submit?

People often reach for a single phrase: the right to be forgotten law. It sounds like a promise that the internet can be cleaned up, as if grief could be given space again. In reality, the legal tools are uneven. In the EU, the “right to be forgotten” has real force under the GDPR’s GDPR right to erasure article 17. In the U.S., there is no broad equivalent—so most removals happen through a patchwork of platform policies, state privacy rights, and targeted tactics like data-broker deletions.

This guide is not legal advice, but it is designed to give families a clear map of what the laws and policies tend to allow in 2026, what they usually do not allow, and how to reduce exposure respectfully—especially when you are also managing other essentials of funeral planning, from disposition choices to memorial items like cremation urns for ashes and cremation necklaces.

Why this question keeps coming up in 2026

More families are navigating end-of-life planning in a world where “information” is a product. Death records are compiled. Addresses circulate. People-search sites repackage public data. Even well-meaning posts—an obituary, a fundraiser, a memorial announcement—can become the seed of a long-lived digital footprint.

At the same time, disposition choices increasingly happen on a timeline that intersects with online visibility. According to the National Funeral Directors Association, cremation remains the majority choice in the U.S., and NFDA’s reported projections underscore how common it is for families to be making decisions about urn selection, memorial timing, and what information to share publicly. Likewise, the Cremation Association of North America reports continued high cremation rates, reflecting how many households are now balancing grief with a set of practical next steps that can involve travel, timing, and online coordination.

That coordination can be gentle and helpful, but it can also feel invasive—especially when a family is also deciding things like keeping ashes at home, choosing keepsake urns to share among relatives, or planning a water burial at sea. When you are already making decisions about what to do with ashes and how much does cremation cost, it is understandable to want at least one area to feel controllable: what the public can easily find.

The “right to be forgotten” is not one thing

Before comparing the EU and the U.S., it helps to separate three different outcomes that people sometimes lump together:

First is deletion at the source. This means a website, business, or platform actually removes content or personal data from its systems. Second is de-indexing or delisting. This means the content may remain on a webpage, but it is removed from certain search results—so it becomes harder to find by searching a person’s name. Third is suppression through policy choices, such as removing an obituary from a funeral home’s site, turning off comments, changing privacy settings on a memorial page, or limiting who can view a social profile.

The EU has a stronger legal framework for both deletion and delisting, but it still has limits and exceptions. The U.S. has narrower legal deletion rights, but sometimes stronger practical leverage through platform tools, data-broker regimes, and reputation-management strategies that can reduce exposure even when the law does not guarantee removal.

EU: GDPR Article 17 and what “erasure” really means

The EU’s strongest legal lever is the GDPR’s “Right to erasure,” commonly associated with the “right to be forgotten.” The baseline legal text is GDPR Article 17, which describes circumstances where an individual can request deletion of personal data held by a controller—such as when data is no longer necessary for the purpose it was collected, consent is withdrawn, or processing is unlawful.

In practice, families often discover the most visible version of this right is search engine delisting: removing results for searches that include a person’s name. The European Data Protection Board’s guidance on delisting (often called “right to be forgotten” in the search context) explains how balancing tests work, including the weight given to public interest, the role of the person in public life, and the nature of the information. A key reference is the EDPB’s Guidelines 5/2019 on the criteria for delisting from search engines.

It is also important to understand what the GDPR itself builds in as limits. Article 17 includes exceptions—situations where erasure can be refused—such as where processing is necessary for exercising freedom of expression and information, complying with a legal obligation, performing a task in the public interest, or establishing and defending legal claims. These exceptions are part of the same GDPR text, and they explain why “remove this” requests are often denied when the information is tied to journalism, public records, or legal compliance.

One more point that matters specifically to families after a death: the GDPR explicitly notes that it does not apply to the personal data of deceased persons (a principle stated in its recitals), leaving room for EU member states to adopt their own rules for post-mortem privacy. This is why the question “can I file a GDPR erasure request on behalf of a deceased family member?” can have different answers depending on where you live and which institution holds the data—even though the GDPR framework itself is the starting point. The most reliable first step is to identify whether the request is being made about the living requestor’s data (for example, a surviving spouse’s address displayed in an obituary) or about the deceased person’s data.

How EU delisting typically works in real life

Families usually interact with delisting through search engine processes rather than courtrooms. Google provides an overview of how it handles European delisting requests in its Right to be Forgotten Overview and publishes aggregate reporting through its EU privacy delisting transparency reporting. Those resources make the core point plain: delisting is not the same as erasing the underlying page. The webpage may still exist, but it becomes less visible for name-based searches in relevant jurisdictions.

That distinction matters when families are trying to remove obituary from internet searches. In the EU, delisting may reduce “name search” discoverability, but it may not remove the obituary from the publisher’s site, and it may not affect searches for other terms (like an address, a cemetery name, or a fundraiser title). If the family’s goal is actual deletion, they typically need to work with the site that hosts the content as well as the search engine that surfaces it.

U.S.: narrower deletion rights, but more policy levers

If you are searching for a universal right to be forgotten US equivalent, the honest answer is that it does not exist. The U.S. approach is narrower and fragmented: some states provide consumer rights to delete or correct personal information held by certain businesses, and platforms often provide separate tools for reporting, memorializing, or removing content.

California remains the state that most families encounter first in this space. The California Attorney General’s overview of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) describes core consumer rights, including deletion in qualifying contexts. In plain language, this is the “you can ask a business to delete your personal information” model—but it is limited by scope, exemptions, and the fact that it primarily targets businesses’ handling of consumer data, not the publication of news, public records, or third-party reposts.

Where California becomes especially relevant in 2026 is data brokers. The state’s Delete Act (SB 362) created a centralized mechanism—commonly referenced as DROP—to submit deletion requests to registered data brokers. The California Privacy Protection Agency’s page About DROP and the Delete Act explains the platform and the compliance timeline, including when brokers begin processing requests. The CPPA has also described key compliance obligations in its announcement about Delete Act regulations. See California Approves Delete Act Regulations for practical details on processing requirements and exceptions.

In other states, the legal foundation is typically a privacy act that grants rights like access, correction, deletion, and opt-out for certain processing. Colorado, for example, outlines consumer rights in its privacy framework; Colorado’s legislative summary of SB21-190 describes deletion as part of the state’s consumer privacy rights. The practical takeaway is not that every state will fix this problem for every family—it will not—but that the U.S. path is often a combination of (1) state deletion requests where applicable, (2) platform policy requests, and (3) data-broker deletion where available.

EU vs U.S. at a glance

What you want to happen	EU approach	U.S. approach
Remove personal data held by a business	Often possible under GDPR Article 17, subject to exceptions	Sometimes possible under state laws (for example, CCPA) and company policies; scope varies
Make a page harder to find via name search	Delisting from search engines is a core mechanism (see EDPB delisting guidance)	No general legal delisting right; use platform tools, reputation tactics, and removal policies
Delete data broker profiles	Possible under GDPR requests to controllers; no EU-wide “single button” equivalent	California’s centralized approach is emerging via DROP under the Delete Act
Remove journalism or public-record reporting	Often blocked by freedom-of-expression and public-interest exceptions in GDPR	Often protected by the First Amendment and public records rules; removals usually require publisher discretion

What removal requests can realistically do—and what they usually cannot

If you are trying to remove personal info online, it helps to set expectations in a way that protects you from the “second grief” of endless forms and disappointing responses.

Removal requests are most effective when the content is clearly wrong, clearly excessive, or clearly posted without a valid reason. A home address attached to a memorial page. A phone number scraped into a people-search profile. A photo posted without consent. These are the situations where platforms often act quickly, and where legal rights—especially in the EU—can align with common-sense fairness.

Removal requests are far less effective when the information sits in a category that laws and courts treat as socially important: public records, court filings, property records, licensed professional listings, and journalism. Even in the EU, the right to erasure is not absolute; it is balanced against public interest and freedom of expression, as reflected in the exceptions embedded in GDPR Article 17. In the U.S., these limits are often more rigid, because legal frameworks heavily protect publication and public access to records.

For families hoping to remove obituary from internet listings, the most realistic “win” is often a layered outcome: you might succeed in removing an address or contact detail, restricting a memorial page’s visibility, and deleting data-broker profiles, even if the obituary itself remains on a publisher’s site or in an archive.

A compassionate, practical approach for families after a death

When someone dies, privacy work can feel like an additional burden. The most sustainable approach is to prioritize the highest-risk exposures first: addresses, phone numbers, doxxing-style details, and broad data-broker dissemination. California residents, for example, can use DROP to submit deletion requests to registered data brokers through a single channel, which can reduce the time and emotional energy required compared with one-by-one requests.

Next, work at the source. If an obituary was posted by a funeral home, a local paper, or a third-party memorial site, a direct request to the publisher is often the only path to true deletion. In both the EU and the U.S., it helps to be specific: ask for removal of a home address, removal of a maiden name if it increases exposure, removal of minor children’s details, or an edit that keeps the tribute while reducing risk. This is often more successful than asking for total removal, especially when a publisher has policies designed to preserve archives.

Then consider search visibility. In the EU, delisting requests can be a meaningful way to reduce name-search exposure (see Google’s Right to be Forgotten Overview and its EU privacy transparency reporting). In the U.S., where broad delisting is not a guaranteed right, families often use a different tactic: clean up what can be cleaned up, then reduce what rises to the top by building accurate, respectful pages that you control—such as a private family memorial page, or an obituary rewrite on a platform with better privacy settings.

Finally, recognize that privacy law after death often intersects with authority. If you are acting as an executor or fiduciary and you need to access accounts or request changes, a key legal framework in many U.S. states is the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA). The Uniform Law Commission maintains resources related to fiduciary access to digital assets, including the Final Act with Comments. This does not create a broad “erase everything” right, but it can support lawful access and administration—often the necessary foundation for platform requests.

How funeral planning and memorial choices can reduce exposure

Privacy is not only about takedowns. It is also about what you choose to publish while you are in motion. Many families find it helpful to decide, early, what details should remain private: a home address, the location where ashes will be scattered, the name of a minor child, or a photo that includes a visible school logo.

This is where “digital choices” sit beside more familiar funeral planning decisions. If your family is planning cremation, you might be choosing between full-size cremation urns and small cremation urns for sharing, or between an urn at home and a ceremony later. Funeral.com’s guide How to Choose a Cremation Urn That Actually Fits Your Plans can help families align an urn with logistics—home display, scattering, burial, travel—so you are not forced into last-minute decisions that often lead to rushed public posts.

If your plan involves keeping ashes at home, it can help to avoid publishing exact locations and routines, especially when relatives are posting publicly during a vulnerable time. Funeral.com’s Journal guide Keeping Ashes at Home: How to Do It Safely, Respectfully, and Legally is focused on care and practicality, but it also reflects a quiet truth: families deserve time. You do not have to make every decision publicly, immediately.

For families planning a water burial, the privacy question often becomes “what do we share about timing and location?” and “how do we describe the ceremony without inviting unwanted attention?” Funeral.com’s guide Water Burial and Burial at Sea: What “3 Nautical Miles” Means helps explain the planning side, which can make it easier to write a respectful announcement that is meaningful without being overly revealing.

And if cost is part of your decision-making, it is common to want to keep financial details private while still being realistic about next steps. Funeral.com’s overview How Much Does Cremation Cost in the U.S.? and NFDA’s reported statistics on funeral costs (see NFDA statistics) can help families understand pricing without turning a private moment into a public negotiation online.

For pet loss, the privacy concerns can be different but still real: an address included in a memorial fundraiser, a phone number in a shared post, or a profile scraped into a people-search site. If you are also choosing pet urns or pet urns for ashes, Funeral.com’s Pet Urns for Ashes: A Complete Guide for Dog and Cat Owners can support the memorial decision itself, while collections like pet cremation urns for ashes, pet figurine cremation urns, and pet keepsake cremation urns can help families choose tributes that do not require posting personal details publicly to receive support or advice.

Finally, for families who want a wearable memorial, cremation jewelry can be profoundly comforting, but it can also unintentionally create privacy exposure if order confirmations, engraving details, or photos are posted publicly. Funeral.com’s guide Cremation Jewelry 101 is a practical resource for choosing and handling cremation necklaces in a way that is calm and respectful—without requiring you to share more than you want to share.

FAQs