For those who have to implement government regulations one of the few options to influence the regulation is to try and influence the defining of the regulation. Once the regulation is put in place then you can try and negotiate the compliance to the regulation. The hopes of changing the regulation is almost impossible.

For years the regulation on the Data Center Industry was an inevitability. The EU’s “right to be forgotten” regulation on Google and other search engines followed the pattern of governments meeting and playing their political games to create something legally binding. Google fought as hard as they could to prevent the “right to be forgotten” regulation, but it is now in effect. And, we are able to see the effects of the regulation since the results are out there for all to see. Oh oh, the results are not what people thought it would be and the vision of what was sold by the government regulators is not as accurate. There is data to see how effective the regulation is in achieving its goal. The regulators by trying to regulate the data center industry are finding they themselves could be measured as to how well their laws are working.

The Guardian has a post that says the “right to be forgotten” is not enforceable.

EU 'right to be forgotten' law unenforceable, says justice minister

Simon Hughes says law currently being negotiated by EU states could lead to thousands of misconceived complaints

...

The judgment had created a new stream of complaints to internet companies which might eventually find their way to the Information Commissioner's Office and be appealed up to tribunals, Hughes added.

He denied that the ICO was already swamped but acknowledged that thousands of requests had been made since the ECJ judgment, the result of which, he said, had been "unexpected".

He said: "There is no right given by the judgment for people to have their personal data deleted from the search engine results. There is no unfettered right. There is no right to be forgotten. Not in the law of the UK, not in directives, not in the judgments of the court."

Hughes said a "mischievous" business of online reputation management had emerged since the judgment, offering to assist people trying to request removal of information online.

On the practicalities, Hughes commented: "It looks to me as if it may be an unmanageable task. It will be a phenomenal task. It's not technically possible to remove all traces of data loaded on to the internet from other sources. You can't exercise the right to be forgotten. The information system could not be made to do it.

Google is cooperating by providing the information that supports seeing the effect of regulation.

"Google are being very cooperative. My interpretation is that this is difficult and uncomfortable for them. They are conscious of their global influence. I think they would be very keen for the law to be changed as soon as possible and will collaborate with us to do so."

It was probably not a coincidence that a number of requests to remove stories by high-profile journalists had been "on the top of the pile" when Google came to consider removals initially. "That series of events suggests to me that people want to make sure their positions are known," Hughes said.

Ministers have estimated that the cost to British businesses of enforcing a new EU law on the right to be forgotten and related regulations would be up to £360m a year.