On Wednesday 5 March 2025, the trial in the case of Clarke v Guardian QB-2022-001397 began before Steyn J. The actor, Noel Clarke is suing The Guardian for libel and data protection in relation to eight articles published between 2021-2022 which accused him of sexual misconduct. The Guardian is arguing that the defences of truth and public interest apply.

The actor said that the Guardian had acted as “the judge, jury and executioner” of his reputation, suggesting that the sources relied upon in their reporting were “hostile” and had an “axe to grind”. The defendant newspaper stated that over a dozen women would give evidence in relation to their experience of Mr Clarke’s inappropriate behaviour, explaining that “there is no motive for them to lie” in response to the claimant’s argument that he is the target of an “unlawful conspiracy.” The trial is estimated to last for 6 weeks. 5RB summarised the trial. BBC, The Guardian, The London Evening Standard, Sky News, The Telegraph, The Sun and The Mirror covered the trial.

Tech giant, Apple is reported to have appealed to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal against the UK government’s secret order, requiring the company to share encrypted data with law enforcement in relation to national security threats. The order, which was issued in January, demands access to data even if protected by Apple’s strongest encryption tool, Advanced Data Protection (ADP), which is opt-in and blocks Apple from accessing the data.

Rather than creating a “backdoor” to comply, Apple withdrew ADP from the UK market, stating it would not compromise its security features and expressing disappointment at the decision. Donald Trump and US Head of Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard have criticised the order. Privacy International also wrote to the Home Secretary, demanding transparency on the notice given to Apple. The BBC and Financial Times.

The Brett Wilson Media and Communication Law Blog has an article examining the judgement on meaning handed down by Eady J last week in the case of Ware v Waters and Al Jazeera [2025] EWHC 389.

It also has an article analysing the decision of the Northern Ireland High Court to grant permission to serve proceedings on Meta outside of the jurisdiction in the recent case of AB v Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd [2025] NIMaster 2.

Internet and Social Media

The ICO has launched investigations into TikTok, Reddit, and Imgur to assess how well these platforms protect the privacy of child users. The investigation into TikTok focuses on how it uses the personal information of 13–17-year-olds in the UK to make content recommendations, amid concerns that data-driven algorithms could expose young users to inappropriate or harmful material. The investigations into Reddit and Imgur concern how these platforms handle children’s personal data and whether they use effective age assurance measures to keep young users safe. The BBC, The Guardian, Reuters, Computing UK and The Hacker News reported on the announcement.

Data privacy and data protection

Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP’s Privacy & Information Security Law Blog has a post summarising the ICO’s Tech Horizons Report, published last month. The Report explores four technologies with the regulator expects to significantly shape society in the coming years: connected transport, quantum sensing and imaging, digital diagnostics and therapeutics and synthetic media.

Surveillance

The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill is currently being debated at Committee Stage in the House of Commons. The Bill includes powers to require banks to conduct algorithmic surveillance of their customers’ bank accounts to identify benefits recipients and flag those who appear to be ineligible for welfare to the Department for Work and Pensions for further investigation. The controversial powers would allow financial surveillance without suspicion and extend to both fraudulent and erroneous overpayments. The Independent, The Daily Express, Manchester Evening News, Disability News Service and Birmingham Live covered the Committee Stage debates.

Newspape Journalism and regulation

Jamie and Rebekah Vardy secured a correction from the Daily Mail after filing a complaint with the press regulator IPSO over an October 2024 article suggesting the couple were facing financial difficulties following Rebekah’s failed libel case against Coleen Rooney. The article falsely claimed Jamie had made a “significant investment” in the now-defunct Rochester Rhinos soccer club, while in reality, he had only received a minority stake for free to help attract players. IPSO found the inaccuracy significant due to the article’s implications about the Vardys’ finances, but ruled the Daily Mail met the Editors’ Code of Practice by offering a prompt correction, which clarified Jamie’s true involvement. The Press Gazette covered the ruling.

IPSO

Statements in open court and apologies

We are not aware of any statements in open court or apologies from the last week.

New Issued cases

There was one Injunction claim filed on the media and communications list last week.

Last week in the courts

On Tuesday 4 March 2025 there was an application hearing before Collins Rice J in the defamation case of Ismaik v Fadaat Media Limited QB-2022-002298, following which a Tomlin Order was granted.

On the same day, there was a directions hearing before Jay J in the harassment case of Optosafe Limited and another v Robertson KB-2024-000054.

As mentioned above, on Wednesday 5 March 2025, the trial in the case of Clarke v Guardian QB-2022-001397 began before Steyn J. On Friday 7 March 2025, within the context of that trial, Steyn J refused the Claimant’s application to re-amend his Amended Reply to the Defendant’s reliance on the public interest defence [2025] EWHC 517 (KB). The court found that the application had been submitted very late, without an explanation for the delay, which weight against granting permission [26-28]. The court also held that all three of the proposed amendments were pleaded with deficiencies, but permitted one amendment [31] [34].

On the same day, there were applications heard 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 was a PTR in the case of Chaudhry and another v Qureshi KB-2022-003483.

Media law in other jurisdictions

Australia

On 7 March 2025, the Supreme Court of Western Australia handed down judgement in favour of the plaintiff in the defamation case of Jabbie v Gbangaye [2025] WASC 73. The case concerned a podcast livestreamed on a Facebook page, which accused the plaintiff of being complicit in murder. The defendant was unable to prove the defences of truth or justification, as she did not witness the incidents she referred to in the podcast, nor did she call witnesses to give evidence [72-74]. The court awarded general and special damages totalling $395,400 AUD and granted an injunction to restrain the defendant from repeating the defamatory allegations.

Canada

On 4 March 2025, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia handed down judgement in favour of the plaintiff in the defamation case of Terris v. Meisner, 2025 NSSC 84. The defendant’s son was a disabled patient with complex needs being cared for by the plaintiff, a registered nurse. Following a challenging shift, the defendant wrongly accused the plaintiff of abusing her son and posted her picture online, leading to widespread media attention, threats and impacts on the plaintiff’s life, including strained relationships, panic attacks and PTSD. The defences of justification and fair comment were unsuccessful as the defendant was neither able to prove that the statements were true, nor that they were “fair by any standard” [129]. The court awarded the plaintiff $60,000 in general damages.

On 6 March 2025, the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta dismissed an application for an interlocutory injunction in the defamation case of MHCare Medical Corp. v Pike, 2025 ABKB 135. The Applicants, MHCare Medical Corporation and its Director sought an order to prevent the defendant, the host of a podcast and website called Breakdown Media, from publishing any content about the company’s operators, employees and contractors. The application was dismissed as the Applicants were unable to establish that the defendants defences would inevitably fail.

On the same day, the Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of the motion judge’s decision to grant an anti-SLAPP motion in relation to the defamation case of Benchwood Builders, Inc. v. Prescott, 2025 ONCA 171. The defendants accused the plaintiffs of dishonesty, poor workmanship, and unethical behavior underneath posts which advertised the home renovations work the plaintiffs had completed on the defendants’ home. On appeal, the court found that the motion judge had wrongly held that the matter was of public interest; failed to assess the validity of the defendants’ defence and only cursorily weighed the harm caused against the public interest [12].

Hong Kong

On Monday 3 March, the High Court of Hong Kong handed down judgement in the case of HKSAR v So Tsun Fung [2025] HKCFI 916. The court held that publicly advocating for an election boycott during the election period is an act that affects, disrupts, or manipulates elections. The court dismissed So Tsun Fung’s constitutional challenge and upheld the constitutionality of the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance (ECICO), which criminalises the incitement of others not to vote or to cast invalid votes publicly during the election period, concluding that it did not violate the rights to freedom of expression and equality. The court emphasised that the law was enacted in response to unrest, violence, and riots around 2019 that threatened Hong Kong’s stability and therefore comparisons to international standards on election boycotts were irrelevant. Matrix has a summary of the judgement, which is available to read in full here.

Israel

An investigation by The Guardian has revealed that Israel’s military surveillance agency has been using data intercepted from Palestinian telephone conversations and text messages to train an AI tool which will be able to understand spoken Arabic for spying purposes. The model will function as a chatbot tool, similar to Chat GPT, allowing users to ask questions about subjects under surveillance. Human Rights Watch stated that using data obtained through surveillance to train an AI model was “invasive” and “incompatible with human rights” and warned that the tool functions as a “guessing machine” that will be “used to incriminate people.” The Jerusalem Post and Middle East Monitor have more information.

Malaysia

DLA Piper’s Privacy Matters blog has an article explaining the recently published guidelines to Malaysia’s data breach notification and data protection officer appointment requirements.

United States

Rapper, Jay-Z has filed a defamation lawsuit against a woman who withdrew her rape accusation against him, alleging she was pressured by her lawyers into making false claims as part of a “conspiracy” to extort money and damage his reputation. The lawsuit also targets the woman’s lawyers, Tony Buzbee and David Fortney, accusing them of orchestrating the false allegations to bolster their legal actions against Sean “Diddy” Combs, who has been accused of numerous counts of sexual misconduct, assault and extortion. Buzbee denies the claims, explaining that the woman maintains her accusation against Jay-Z, despite withdrawing her lawsuit. The BBC, Daily Mail, Vulture, CNN and ABC News covered the story.

Research and Resources

Next week in the courts

Next week, the trial of the defamation and data protection case of Clarke v Guardian QB-2022-001397 will continue before Steyn J.

On Tuesday 11 March 2025, there will be hearings in the case of Kul And Others Specified In Schedule 1 v DWF Law LLP KB-2023-004108 and Murray v Guardian News and Media Limited KB-2025-000692.

On Wednesday 12 March 2025, there will be a hearing in the libel case of Bridgen v Hancock KB-2023-002309.

On Thursday 13 March 2025, there will be a hearing in the case of SCL -v- MDZ KB-2025-000787.

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.