http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/technology/european-companies-see-opportunity-in-the-right-to-be-forgotten.html?ref=technology

The companies described here are making a sensible early move to what could potentially be a very lucrative market.  In that sense, you can't blame them.  However, given the lack of understanding at both a philosophical and technical level, it seems a risky proposition to be taking fees, especially exorbitant ones, at this juncture.  The ruling is defined within a particular geographic context, and still leaves a great deal of leeway, as indicated in the article, for Google to refuse to comply with the request on the grounds that the information is fairly to be considered public knowledge. 

The article mentions the specific case of requests to have divorce proceedings struck from the record.  While one could easily understand the embarrassment of having such documents available for public review, they are legal proceedings that form the public record.  In the same vein, what would one make of particular aspects of a divorce proceeding that were later dismissed?  Say, for instance, a false accusation on the part of one spouse that the other had been unfaithful?  It is still part of the legal record, and could easily be used absent the context of it having been dismissed.  Or, for that matter, trial acquittals.  Could the Duke lacrosse players that were later discovered to be innocent fairly demand to have every internet mention of their trial removed?  One could easily understand why, but just as much so, one can understand the need for a matter of public record and history.