Rupert Murdoch’s attempt to alter his family trust to give his eldest son, Lachlan, control of his media empire, which includes News Corp and Fox News, has been blocked by a Nevada court after a protracted legal battle with his three other eldest children.

The court ruled that Murdoch and Lachlan acted in “bad faith” in a “carefully crafted charade” to cement Lachlan’s dominance, sidelining his more politically moderate siblings. The proposed change would not have affected financial inheritance but aimed to secure a conservative slant within the empire by shifting voting power. Murdoch plans to appeal the decision. Sky News, The Telegraph, FT, ITVX, The Independent, Guardian, The New York Times and ABC News covered the ruling.

The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in the case of Prismall v Google [2024] EWCA Civ 1516. The Appellant, Mr Primsall, brought a representative claim against Google and Deep Mind on behalf of 1.6 million potential claimants whose identifiable medical records had been transferred from the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust to Deep Mind. On 19 May 2023, Williams J struck out the claim and entered summary judgement for the defendants on the basis that every member of the representative class could not show that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy ([2023] EWHC 1169 (KB)). 

 The Court of Appeal considered five grounds of appeal, ultimately dismissing the appeal and striking out the claim. The first issue was whether the lowest common denominator in the representative class has a real prospect of succeeding in a MPI claim. The Court of Appeal Agreed with the judge at first instance, holding that there will not always be a reasonable expectation of privacy for each member of the representative class, as “the tort involves a threshold of seriousness” and will depend on the facts and circumstances of the individual case [63]. The fact that some patients had placed their medical information in the public domain meant that the MPI claim could not succeed for all members of the representative class [65]. The Court did not deal with this issue of what is covered by “direct care” [70] and held that the judge at first instance was not wrong to include patients who had not given any medical information to their doctor within the class to determine the lowest common denominator [74]. The Court also found that the first instance judge had not erred in refused the appellant permission to amend his claim, as the amendments would not have been able to establish that the lowest common denominator had a real prospect of success in a MPI claim [83].

The House of Lords debated Lord Clement Jones’s Private Members Bill, which aims to set out a legislative framework for the responsible use of algorithmic and automated decision-making systems in the public sector. The aim of the Bill is to prevent bias and discrimination from colouring administrative decision-making, protect individual rights and promote public trust in the use of new technologies by the government. Read the debate in full here.

The Brett Wilson Media and Communication Law Blog has an article marking a decade since the Defamation Act 2013 came into force. It summarises the key provisions of the Act and how they have been interpreted by courts.

Internet and Social Media

The House of Lords debated the Non-Consensual Sexually Explicit Images and Videos (Offences) Bill, a Private Members’ Bill introduced by Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge. The bill, which aims to criminalise the creation of online deepfakes, would introduce a new offence for taking, creating or soliciting the taking or creation of sexually explicit images of another person without consent. Mischon de Reya has more information. Read the debate in full here. The BBC, Independent and the London Evening Standard covered the debate.

Data privacy and data protection

On 9 December 2024, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of Doorstep Dispensaree Limited (DDL) against the Information Commissioner’s issue of a monetary penalty notice in December 2019. DDL supplies medicine to care homes and was found to be in breach of data protection regulations after the Medicines and Healthcare Products Agency discovered crates of sensitive personal information stored in publicly accessible premises. The Court of Appeal held that the appellant holds the burden of proof in relation to an appeal and appellate courts need not consider an appeal afresh. Read the judgement in full here and the ICO’s press release here.

A motor insurance worker has received a suspended six-month prison sentence after unlawfully accessing personal data, following an investigation by the ICO. Rizwan Manjra, who worked for Markerstudy Insurance Services Limited in Manchester, was found to have accessed over 32,000 insurance policies outside of work hours without any legitimate reason. The misconduct came to light after third-party insurers raised concerns about unusually high claim numbers. An internal investigation revealed Manjra sent personal data to another individual via mobile phone. Manchester Evening News, Insurance Times and Infosecurity Magazine covered the story.

The ICO has also fine two companies a total of £290,000 for making millions of nuisance phone calls. Breathe Services Ltd and Money Bubble Ltd attempted to sell life insurance and debt management solutions calls to individuals who had opted out of receiving marketing.

Surveillance

Privacy International have published a report titled ‘Travellers’ Surveillance: The role of the UN Countering Terrorist Travel Programme,’ which raises concerns about the UN’s role in promoting the surveillance of travellers through the provision of software to Member States and offers recommendations to mitigate potential human rights violations. Read the report in full here.

South Wales and Gwent Police forces have launched an Operator Initiated Facial Recognition app, which will allow officers to take biometric scans of unknown individuals for the purpose of identifying them. Officers say it will be used to confirm the identity of missing, at risk or wanted individuals, however Big Brother Watch argue that it “creates a dangerous imbalance between the public’s rights and the police’s powers,” which will “disproportionately target[ed] ethnic minorities for face scans” and “undermine trust in the police.” BBC, Biometric Update, Wales Online, UKAuthority and Aberdare Online covered the development.

Newspaper Journalism and regulation

On Thursday 12 and Friday 13 December, journalists at the Guardian and Observer staged their second 48-hour strike to protest the planned sale of the Observer to Tortoise Media. This follows the announcement that the sale has been agreed in principle, despite members of the National Union of Journalists calling the deal a “betrayal” of the trustee duties of the Scott Trust, who own the Guardian Media Group. The Guardian, Prospect and the NUJ have more information.

Freelance journalist Lydia Suffield has denied stalking former chancellor George Osborne and his wife, over a year-long period from June 2022 to July 2023. Prosecutors allege Suffield sent emails, Instagram messages, and false referrals to the NSPCC accusing the couple of drug abuse, as well as contacting their friends, family, and colleagues. In court, Suffield indicated her not guilty plea and argued that any communications were made in her professional capacity. The case has been sent to Isleworth Crown Court for a plea and trial preparation hearing in January 2025. The Press Gazette, Sky News, London Evening Standard, Daily Mail, Reuters and Eastern Daily Press covered the hearing.

The Muslim Council of Britain’s Centre for Media Monitoring has published a report which accuses GB News of engaging in “almost obsessive” coverage of Muslims with the broadcaster mentioning certain words relating to Islam – such as mosque, Sharia and burka – 17,000 times over a two-year period. The report also assessed broadcasts from BBC News and Sky News and found that GB News accounted for almost half of all references to Muslims among the broadcasters. The Centre for Media Monitoring urged Ofcom to regulate the broadcaster, whilst GB News called the report an “inaccurate and defamatory…attempt to silence free speech.” The Press Gazette, Guardian, Hyphen, The National Scot, The Herald, Middle East Eye and The New Arab covered the report’s findings.

IPSO

Statements in open court and apologies

We are not aware of any statements in open court and apologies.

New Issued cases

There were two defamation (libel and slander) claims filed on the Media and Communications list last week.

Last week in the courts

Between Monday 9 and Wednesday 11 December 2024, there was a trial in the case of Jarmarleos Do Zurius v NHS England QB-2020-003210 before Aidan Eardley KC.

On Tuesday 10 December 2024 there was a pre-trial review before Fancourt J in the case of Various v News Group Newspapers. According to the Press Gazette, both parties offered time estimates of how long each part of the scheduled seven-week trial, due to start in January 2025, would require. On the same day, there was a hearing in the case of Adams v Johnson.

As mentioned above, on Wednesday 11 December 2024, the Court of Appeal (Sharp P, Nicola Davies and Dingemans LJJ) handed down judgment in the case of Prismall v Google [2024] EWCA Civ 1516.

 On the same day, Nicklin J handed down judgement in the data protection claim of Chirkunov v Person(s) Unknown & Ors [2024] EWHC 3177 (KB). The claimant, who operates a luxury ride-hailing service, brought a claim against two unknown defendants alleging several breaches of the UK GDPR in relation to two articles published online. The claimant sought permission to serve the Claim form outside the jurisdiction using alternative service. Nicklin J refused the application for permission to serve the claim form out the jurisdiction on the basis that England & Wales is not the appropriate forum for the dispute [82], as the Claimant does not know where the defendants are located, nor had he made adequate efforts – for instance through an application for a Norwich Pharmacal order – to find out [95]. Additionally, the Court held that there is unlikely to be any tangible benefit to allowing the application to serve out, since it is not clear that any remedies sought would be enforceable [99]. Nicklin J did not strictly have to consider the issue of alternative service but held that the Court would also refuse permission on the basis that serving the Claim form to the specified email addresses could not reasonably be expected to bring the Claim Form to the attention of the Defendants [110].

On Thursday 12 December there was a disposal hearing before Hill J in Wei v Long KB-2023-003483.

On Friday 13 December there was a CMC hearing before Nicklin J in Thomas Cole v Marlborough College KB-2024-000127.

On the same day, the Court of Appeal (Underhill LJ, Dingemans LJ and Warby LJ) handed down a unanimous judgement in the case of Iqbal v Geo TV Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1566. The founder and president of an Urdu-language TV channel ARY Network, Salman Iqbal (Respondent) sued the defendant TV channel, GEO News (Appellant) for its coverage of a Pakistan Muslim League political rally, during which the claimant was criticised for his closeness with former Prime Minister Imran Khan. The Appellant had sought summary judgement, arguing that the broadcast was subject to reporting privilege under the Defamation Act 1996 and that the publication was on a matter of public interest. On 27 November 2023, HHJ Lewis held that the broadcasts were fair and accurate reports of proceedings at a public meeting, but that a full trial was needed to decide whether they were of public interest and public benefit and how the issue of malice applied under the Defamation Act 1996.

The Court of Appeal set aside the order of HHJ Lewis and entered summary judgement for Geo on the entirety of the claim. The court held that the judge’s conclusions on the application of section 15(1) and schedule 1 (i.e., whether the event at which the statements were made was a public meeting; whether the live broadcast constituted a report and whether the statement was a fair and accurate report of proceedings) could not be faulted. However, the Court held that HHJ Lewis erred on the issue of whether the publication was of public interest and for the public benefit, by focusing on the words complained of, rather than whether the privileged reports contained “matter” that was of public interest [66]. The Court of Appeal also held that the only real prospect the Respondent had of establishing malice was by showing that the Appellant had knowledge that its allegations were false, or reckless indifference to their truth; this was not possible, as the Appellant did not know what the speaker was going to say about the Respondent in advance, and therefore there was no issue to be tried on malice [99-100].

Media law in other jurisdictions

Australia

On 10 December 2024, the Federal Court of Australia awarded the plaintiff damages and ordered the defendant to remove and refrain from repeating the defamatory allegations that the plaintiff was engaged in serious criminal activity in the case of Ivory v Howard [2024] FCA 1416. In May, the court had found that 3 Facebook messages posted by the defendant had caused damage to the plaintiff’s reputation and awarded damages and aggravated damages in the sum of $75,000 AUD, given the “significant sadness, anger, hurt and dismay” suffered by the plaintiff and the defendant’s persistence in making untrue allegations, and her failure to engage in the proceedings.

On 12 December, the Government announced the reformed News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code, which will require digital platforms to pay costs to Australian news outlets for the use of their content or face substantial taxes. The tax will apply from January 2025 to digital platforms that earn over 250 million AUD in revenue in Australia. The Assistant Treasurer explained that the goal is not to raise revenue, but rather to incentivise digital platforms to make deals with news media organisations, after Meta announced that it would not renew deals to pay Australian news outlets for their content. The Washington Times, Capital Brief and Bridport News have more information.

Canada

On 10 December 2024, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia dismissed the defamation action in the case of Fraser and DLF Law Practice Incorporated. v. MacIntosh-Wiseman, 2024 NSSC 378. The plaintiff alleged that an email sent by the defendant which accused him of being responsible for her decisions to leave their law firm and quit practicing law, was defamatory and placed him in a false light. The court granted the plaintiff summary dismissal of the claim, as an ordinary person would not conclude that the email complained of was defamatory of the plaintiff.

TikTok Canada has filed a legal challenge in federal court against a government order to cease its operations in the country, arguing that the order exceeds legal authority, is unjustified, and threatens the livelihoods of its employees and the service to over 14 million Canadian users. The government defended its decision on the basis of national security concerns, but TikTok argues that the concerns are based on inaccuracies and that the government breached procedural fairness by depriving the company of a fair opportunity to exercise its statutory rights. Reuters, ICLG and Silicon UK reported on the development.

Europe

A coalition of over 50 media and human rights organisations, tech companies and trade unions have written a letter to the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council raising concerns about recommendations by the High-Level Group (HLG) advocating for expansive law enforcement access to personal data. The coalition warned of risks to privacy and mass surveillance and criticised the concept of “lawful access by design,” which would compromise digital security by embedding law enforcement access into technology development, undermining protections like end-to-end encryption.

Germany

DLA Piper’s Privacy Matters Blog has a post examining the judgement of the German Federal Court of Judice in relation to whether non-material damages due to a mere loss of control of personal could be awarded data under Article 82 GDPR. The claim related to the April 2021 personal data breach wherein unknown third parties collected and harvested the data of over 500 million Facebook users for scraping. The court ruled in favour of the existence of non-material damages arising from a loss of control of personal data and clarified what requirements must be met in such claims.

Turkey

The Turkish Parliament are considering the “Agent of Influence” bill which is expected to be reintroduced before the end of this year. The bill proposes to introduce a new offence for committing a crime against the security or political interests of the state in line with the interests of or under the direction of a foreign state or organisation, which would carry a prison sentence of three to seven years. Critics of the bill say it represents a significant threat to fundamental freedoms, including press freedom and freedom of expression and association, and argue that it would allow “courts to effectively treat government critics as spies.” 56 civil society organisations signed a joint letter urging the EU to publicly call on Türkiye to fully withdraw the bill and prioritise free expression in EU- Türkiye relations.

United States

ABC has agreed to a $15 million settlement with Donald Trump following his defamation lawsuit against the network and host George Stephanopoulos. During an interview in March 2024, Stephanopoulos questioned Congresswoman Nancy Mace on her support for Trump, suggesting that a jury had found him “liable for rape” and the finding being “affirmed by a judge.” Stephanopoulos’s comments related to a trial last year in which a jury found that under New York Law, Trump had “sexually abused” but not raped columnist E Jean Carroll. Trump’s legal team claimed the statements were false and sued in federal court. The settlement, reached after both Trump and Stephanopoulos were ordered to appear for depositions, will contribute to Trump’s future presidential library and ABC will also publish a statement of regret on its website. The New York Times, Guardian, Fox News, The Independent, BBC, AP News, Politico and The Washington Post covered the settlement.

Research and Resources

Next week in the courts

We are not aware of any cases listed in the Media and Communications List this week.

Reserved judgements

Ashley v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, heard 2 and 3 December 2024 (Heather Williams J)

Smith & Jackson v Surridge, heard 25 November – 3 December 2024 (Saini J)

Ashley v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, heard 2-3 December 2024 (Heather Williams J)

Miller v Peake, heard 18 to 20 November 2024 (HHJ Parkes KC)

RTM v Bonne Terre Limited and another, heard 11 to 15 November 2024 (Collins Rice J)

Vince v Bailey, heard 11-12 November 2024 (Pepperall J)

Vince v Tice and Vince v Staines heard 11 November 2024 (Pepperall J)

Secretary of State for Education v Marples, 4 November 2024, (Sir Peter Lane)

MBR Acres v FREE THE MBR BEAGLES, heard 24-28 April 2023, 2-5, 9, 11-12, 15, 17-18, 22-23 May 2023 (Nicklin J)

This Round Up was compiled by Jasleen Chaggar who is an advocacy advisor at Big Brother Watch.