President Trump has criticised the UK’s request for Apple to create a secret “back door” to its most secure iCloud storage, comparing it to tactics used by China. During an interview with the Spectator magazine following his meeting with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, Trump said he warned Starmer, “You can’t do this.”

Apple recently withdrew its Advanced Data Protection system for iCloud in the UK rather than comply with a legal demand under the Investigatory Powers Act to grant law enforcement access to encrypted data. US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard expressed “grave concern,” calling the move a violation of Americans’ privacy and launching an investigation into the matter. The Spectator interview is available here and more information is available from The Financial Times, Forbes, and Reuters.

On 27 February 2025, the government published the Crime and Policing Bill, which would introduce a range of sweeping powers, including banning face coverings during protests, giving police the power to seize stolen mobile phones from properties without a warrant and giving the Secretary of State the power to grant police forces, the National Crime Agency and the Independent Office for Police Conduct access to the driving licence database for policing purposes. The Guardian, BBC, Sky News, LBC, The Justice Gap and Bristol Live covered the development. Joshua Rozenberg KC’s blog, A Lawyer Writes, also has more information.

A headteacher of a school Merseyside has settled a harassment claim against the parents of two students after they led a campaign to remove him from his position, including creating a Facebook page with offensive content and accusations of bullying. While the parents argued their actions were not harassment, the case, set for trial in October 2025, was resolved when they agreed to stop their conduct and pay £10,000 in damages and costs. This is believed to be the first successful UK harassment claim by a teacher against parents. 5RB have a summary. The BBC, Sunday Times and Liverpool Echo covered the settlement.

Internet and Social Media

Meta has apologised after Instagram users reported seeing violent and graphic content, including gore, animal abuse, and dead bodies, on their Reels feeds due to an apparent algorithm malfunction. Reels, Instagram’s short-video feature, unexpectedly displayed disturbing footage, with some users on Reddit describing seeing multiple deaths in their feeds. While the incident occurred amid recent changes to Meta’s content moderation policies—such as reducing censorship and removing fact-checkers—the company told 404 Media that the graphic video surge was not related to these changes. The Guardian, CNBC, CBS, CNN, The Hill, The Economic Times and LBC covered the story.

Clean Up the Internet has submitted evidence to the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee’s inquiry into social media, misinformation and harmful algorithms. The evidence, which is available to read here, examines the role of fake and anonymous accounts in spreading conspiracy theories, fuelling hate and abuse, and enabling fraud.

Mischon de Reya have a blog post explaining the implications of the EU AI Act, which came into force on 2 February 2025, for providers and deployers of AI systems. The Act prohibits the use of AI systems for, among other things, predictive policing, facial image scraping and emotion recognition in the workplace or education settings.

Data privacy and data protection

The ICO has reprimanded Glasgow City Council and City of Edinburgh Council for consistently failing to respond to Subject Access Requests (SARs) within the required legal timeframe, resulting in a significant backlog. Many councils have experienced an increase in SARs as a result of the Redress Scotland scheme, under which those who suffered abuse whilst living in care apply for compensation using their care records as evidence. The reprimands follow an investigation into all 32 Scottish local authorities, which revealed some SAR delays extending for years.

Surveillance

The Mayor of London’s Office for Policing and Crime and the Secretary of State for Justice have agreed to revise a scheme that mandates GPS 24-hour tracking for individuals released on licence in London after knife-related offences. The changes come as a result of a judicial review by the Black Equity Organisation (BOE), which argued that the scheme’s selection criteria were indirectly racially discriminatory and that the authorities failed to monitor racial disproportionality, as black individuals were nearly twice as likely as white individuals to be selected for GPS monitoring. As part of the settlement, the authorities will remove the existing selection criteria (including those related to gang links), collect and publish data on tracking selection processes and conduct a rapid review with an independent expert to address racial bias. The Court Order is available here and BOE’s statement can be read here. Matrix Chambers published a summary.

Newspaper Journalism and regulation

Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos announced a shift in the newspaper’s opinion section, signalling a move toward more conservative viewpoints. In an email to staff, Bezos said the paper would focus on promoting “personal liberties and free markets,” with opposing views left for other outlets to publish. He suggested that the internet now offers a broad spectrum of opinions, reducing the need for the paper to cover all perspectives. The Guardian, Politico, Sky News, BBC, FT, The Independent, Le Monde and EuroNews reported on the development.

Art, Music and Copyright

The Make It Fair Campaign is calling on the government to drop plans under the Data (Use and Access) Bill to make creatives and artists responsible for ‘opting out’ rather than making AI companies seek permission to use their work. To protest the proposals, 1,000 musicians, including Annie Lennox, Sam Fender and Kate Bush released a silent album. The chairs of two parliamentary committees for Science, Innovation and Technology and Culture, Media and Sport also jointly wrote to their associated Ministers, suggesting that the government should provide transparency on AI training data and establish robust compliance, enforcement and redress mechanisms. Read the letter here. The Guardian, Press Gazette, Daily Mail, The i paper, The Sun and The Irish News have more information.

IPSO

Statements in open court and apologies

Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) has apologised to Ecotricity founder and green entrepreneur, Dale Vince and paid £40,000 in damages over an article published in the Mail on Sunday, which falsely accused him of supporting the terror organisation, Hamas. ANL admitted that the allegation was untrue, acknowledging that, “Mr Vince does not support Hamas in any way.” Separately, Vince had been accused of supporting Hamas in another article published by the Daily Mail last year, which formed the basis of a settlement, apology, damages and undertaking not to repeat similar allegations. ANL recognized that the publication of the second defamatory article was “an error which should not have happened.” The full statement is available here and the Mail’s published apology can be read here. The Brett Wilson Media and Communications Law Blog has more information. BBC, The Irish News, The Independent, Times & Star and The London Economic reported on the settlement.

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

As mentioned above, on Monday 24 February 2025, there was a statement in open court in the case of Vince v Associated Newspapers KB-2024-004147 read before Fordham J.

On Tuesday 25 February 2025, Eady J handed down preliminary judgement on meaning in the case of Ware v Waters and Al Jazeera [2025] EWHC 389. The defamation claim was brought by documentary maker, John Ware against Pink Floyd singer, Roger Waters in relation to comments the musician made in an Al Jazeera programme. The defendant made the accusations in response to a documentary made by John Ware which alleged that Waters is an antisemite. The High Court found that Waters’s statements bore the meaning that (i) Ware had made a documentary containing falsehood about Waters due to Waters’s public support for the Palestinian cause and had done so to undermine his activism; [42] and that (ii) Ware “positively supported the genocide of the Palestinian people by Israeli forces,” [45]. 5RB summarised the judgement.

On Wednesday 26 February 2025, the High Court struck out the defence and counterclaim and entered judgement for the claimant in the defamation and harassment claim of Rzucek v Vinnicombe [2025] EWHC 403 (KB). The case concerned social media content distributed by the defendant which promoted conspiracy theories and false allegations about the tragic murder of the claimant’s sister and her children and accused the claimant of fraudulently and/or dishonestly running a crowdfunding campaign to fund his claim. The Court held that the defence did not comply with procedural rules and the counterclaim disclosed no real grounds for bringing the harassment action. The Court also dismissed the application for security for costs on the basis of the case’s procedural history, the likely outcome of the claim and the unexplained delay in making the application for security for costs.

On the same day, Pepperall J handed down preliminary judgement on meaning in the case of Vince v Tice and Vince v Staines  [2025] EWHC 412 (KB). Ecotricity founder, Dale Vince brought a defamation claim against Reform MP, Richard Tice MP and editor-in-chief of Guido Fawkes, Paul Staines, for alleging that he supports the terror group Hamas on X and in two articles, respectively. The accusations related to comments made by Mr Vince during a Times Radio interview last October, in which he stated that “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist” in the context of a longer discussion.

The court held that the first article bore the defamatory meaning that (i) The Labour Party was hypocritical for not returning donations made by Vince; (ii) Vince had used the aforementioned phrase about Hamas; and (iii) Vince believes and has stated that Hamas are freedom fighters who have the right to defend themselves [48]. The second Guido Fawkes article was held to share similar, albeit slightly varied, defamatory meanings to the first [51]. The impugned statements in both articles were found to be statements of fact [53-60]. Following the preliminary ruling, Guido Fawkes reportedly settled the case, offering to pay £9,995 to Vince in damages, remove both articles and undertake not to repeat the comments. However, Staines did not agree to publish a statement of apology. The Guardian and Press Gazette covered the settlement.

In relation to Tice’s tweet, which comprised of a comment which did not name Vince and a hyperlink to the Guido Fawkes article, Pepperall J held that it was not necessary to determine whether this constituted one or two publications [82]. The court found that Tice’s tweet bore the defamatory meaning that “Mr Vince supports the murderous and antisemitic terrorist organisation Hamas” and was a statement of opinion [92, 100]. The basis of Tice’s opinion was held to be “the Guido Fawkes tweet and the 16-second video clip,” [103].

On Thursday 27 February 2025, there was an adjourned disposal hearing in the case of Wei v Long KB-2023-003483 and a PTR in the case of O’Carroll v Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd KB-2022-004365.

On the same day, the Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant’s application for permission to appeal Steyn J’s decision to dismiss his application to strike out the defendant’s defences in the case of Clarke v Guardian News and Media Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 187. In the original strike out application, Noel Clarke had alleged that the The Guardian’s defences should be struck out as journalists had erased and invented relevant documents. On 5 February 2025, Steyn J refused the application, finding that there had been no wrongdoing on the part of the journalists, nor any attempt to pervert the course of justice ([2025] EWHC 222 (KB)). Warby LJ refused permission to appeal, as it had no realistic prospect of success, even if considered with freshly adduced evidence. The Guardian, The National Scot, and MSN covered the judgement. Matrix and 5RB also summarised the ruling.

On Friday 28 February 2025, there was the hearing of an adjourned application by the claimant in the case of Notting Hill Genesis v Kakpur KB-2025-000140.

On the same day, HHJ Parkes KC handed down judgement in the case of Miller v Peake [2025] EWHC 453 (KB). The defamation and malicious falsehood claim was brought by James Miller, a clerk to Fleggburgh Parish Council, against a former member of the Parish Council, Mr Peake, in relation to 26 posts the defendant made on a Facebook page. The court found that all 26 posts bore defamatory meanings [66] and that, taken individually or as a whole,” the publications caused serious harm to the claimant’s reputation. The defences of truth, honest opinion and public interest failed in relation to the defamation claim [220] but the court dismissed the malicious falsehood claim [226]. The defendant was ordered to pay £20,000 by way of damages and aggravated damages.

Media law in other jurisdictions

Australia

On 24 February 2025, the Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed the plaintiff’s defamation claim in the case of Reiter v News Corp Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] VSC 54. The defendants applied for summary dismissal on the basis that it was an abuse of process as the plaintiff failed to issue a valid ‘concerns notice’ before issuing the claim. The court found that none of the plaintiff’s communications with the defendants constituted a valid concern notice and that it was not nonetheless ‘just and reasonable’ to grant leave for the proceedings to be commenced

Canada

On 24 February 2025, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the defendants’ motion to strike out the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim in the defamation and injurious falsehood case of Paterson v. Royal Bank of Canada et al. 2025 ONSC 1122. The court held that the claim amounted to an abuse of process as it challenged the factual findings of a settlement agreement and violated the limitation period.

On the same day, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed the defendant’s appeal in the defamation case of Neufeld v. Bondar, 2025 BCCA 51. The defendant, Mr Neufeld, had referred to the plaintiff, a candidate for school trustee as “that strip‑tease artist” in a YouTube video. Mr Neufeld was found liable in defamation and ordered to pay the plaintiff $45,000 in general and punitive damages. The defendant argued that the judge erred in finding that the statement complained of was defamatory; that the defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege did not apply and awarding punitive damages. On appeal, the court found that there were no errors made by the trial judge and the damages award was therefore reasonable.

On 25 February 2025, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal in the defamation, constructive dismissal and discrimination case of Brown v. Weirfoulds LLP, 2025 ONCA 152. The motion judge dismissed the plaintiff’s application to add a defendant to the proceedings and struck out the amended statement of claim on the basis that it did not set out any viable causes of action. The appeal was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any error in the motion judge’s analysis and the Court of Appeal agreed that the defamation claim failed to set out the impugned defamatory statement.

Malaysia

On 27 February 2025, the lower house of Malaysia’s legislature passed the Malaysian Media Council (MMC) Bill. The proposed bill aims to empower journalists and media workers to set ethical standards and establish a media code of conduct. The Malaysian Media Council (MMC) will include 21 representatives from media companies, associations, and experts. A range of media and free speech civil society organisations, including Article 19, supported the introduction of the Bill, but warned against allowing government representatives to sit on the MMC Board. Bernama and Malay Mail have more information.

Nepal

The International Federation of Journalists has called on the Nepalese government to withdraw Social Media Act Bill introduced on last month, citing concerns over threats to freedom of expression, the right to information, and press freedom. The bill aims to regulate social media platforms by requiring government registration, enforcing strict content moderation, and targeting online crimes such as extortion, cyberbullying, and scams. It also grants authorities broad powers to remove “indecent” or “misleading” content, criminalise defamatory remarks, and penalise actions like sharing “trolling” images or disclosing “confidential information.” The Himalayan Times, The Rising Nepal and UCA News have more information.

Research and Resources

Next week in the courts

On Tuesday 4 March 2025 there will be a hearing of applications in the case of Ismaik v Fadaat Media Limited QB-2022-002298 and a directions hearing in the case of Optosafe Limited and another v Robertson KB-2024-000054 .

On Wednesday 5 March 2025   the trial in the case of Clarke v Guardian QB-2022-001397 will begin.  The trial is estimated to last 4 to 6 weeks.

On the same day there will be the hearing of application in the cases of Vince v Associated Newspapers Limited KB-2024-001820 and Travelers Insurance Company Ltd v Baldwin KB-2025-000703.

On Thursday 6 March there will be a PTR in the case of Chaudhry and another v Qureshi KB-2022-003483

Reserved judgements

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

This Round Up was compiled by Jasleen Chaggar who is the Legal and Policy Officer at Big Brother Watch.