> does that mean I have a right to your medical records
No, because under data-protection legislation nobody has the right to data about you, but you. More European insanity.
I think GP has incorrectly categorised this as an FOI issue, it's more to do with Antitrust, which is a well worn path in the USA as well.
That's why I believe a decrease in the investment in "traffic acquisition costs" may be in the best interest of Google itself.
Everyone is responsible for the consequences of his own actions. What did we expect?
It would certainly be an improvement and it would give more leverage in avoiding regulatory impositions that in the long term are certainly deleterious (for all).
Perhaps I'm naïve, but I see two possibilities: the acceptance of the overreach in regulations/fines/.., or a self-limitation of the monopoly.
But I'm certainly not in the position to answer the question.
[x] - which is an absurdity in itself - what information? how? when? where? This "right" is just another overreach by the EU et. al. wanting everything to be a "human right" even if it's nonsense. A right to whose information? If I have a unilateral right to information, does that mean I have a right to your medical records? Where do you draw the line? If it's just a right to my own information, which I think is reasonable, Google search results don't qualify.