The Google Minefield: Why Background Checks Without Structure Lead to Legal Complications

TL;DR

• Informal online checks often reveal special category data protected under UK law.
• If this influences hiring, even unintentionally, it could breach the Equality Act or UK GDPR.
• Untrained staff googling applicants leads to inconsistency, bias, and no audit trail.
• Safer recruitment means structured, documented, and legally sound digital vetting.

“Just a Quick Search” Isn’t Harmless

The instinct is understandable. You want to know who you're hiring. But Googling isn’t a process; it’s a habit. And habits don’t hold up in court.

A quick search offers no consistency, no training, no structure. It opens the door to subjective impressions, cherry-picked signals, and unconscious bias, all without documentation.

From a compliance perspective, it’s a car crash. Under UK GDPR, employers must only collect personal data that is relevant, necessary, and lawfully obtained. A casual online trawl rarely meets that bar.

Legal Risk: Special Category Data and Discrimination Claims

When you Google someone, you don’t just see their professional presence. You might stumble across their political beliefs, sexuality, religion, health disclosures, or family situation.

All of this falls under “special category data,” tightly protected by the Equality Act 2010 and UK GDPR. If a candidate is rejected after your team has seen that information, and they suspect it influenced the outcome, you’re exposed.

Even if no one acted maliciously. Even if it was unintentional. Even if it was never discussed.If you don’t have an audit trail of what was seen, when, or by whom, how do you prove your hiring process was fair?

Real risk scenario: An admin runs a Google search and sees that a candidate has been active in political advocacy, and it then sticks in their mind. Later, the panel decides they’re “not quite the right fit.” That “gut feel” can become a liability.

Inconsistency Breeds Risk

The other obvious problem is that no two people Google the same.One staff member might click through to Page 3 of search results. Another might stop after scanning LinkedIn. Someone else might go digging through Facebook or Reddit.

There’s no consistency. No structure. No version control. And certainly no policy.From a tribunal standpoint, that’s a procedural failure. The ICO makes it clear: employers must be transparent, proportionate, and accountable when collecting or using personal data in hiring.

For schools, the stakes are even higher - trust, compliance, and safeguarding all intersect when hiring decisions go wrong.

Safer Recruitment Needs More Than a Search Bar

Let’s be clear, we’re not saying all online checks are wrong. But they need to be done right.You wouldn’t let someone skim a CV and call it a reference check. So why is googling being treated as due diligence?

We built SafeHire to fix this.To give organisations a way to surface digital residue without exposing protected characteristics.To focus on genuine risk signals, not personal details.To provide consistency, auditability, and peace of mind.

This isn’t about tech. It’s about trust. And if you're still relying on Google searches, you're not safeguarding, you're gambling.

Final Thought

In a tribunal, “We googled them” isn’t a compliance policy. It comes across as a shortcut. And shortcuts cost.

Want to see what structured, legally sound digital checks actually look like?

Book a time here

No pressure. Just clarity and one less legal headache to worry about.

📎 Note: According to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), employers must only collect data that is “adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary.”Unstructured online searches often fall outside that remit.

‍