Trinity term came to an end on Thursday 31 July 2025. The civil courts in England and Wales are now on “Summer Vacation” for 2 months until the Michaelmas term begins on Wednesday, 1 October 2025.

Children’s safety requirements under the Online Safety Act, which came into force last week, have affected a broad range of legal content across social media platforms for users who haven’t completed age verification. Posts about the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, UK parliamentary debates on grooming gangs and even a nineteenth century Goya painting were among the restricted material. The law, aimed at protecting children from harmful material, including pornographic content and posts promoting self-harm, threatens hefty fines for non-compliance. However, experts warn that over-implementation may suppress legitimate public interest content and stifle debate. The social media platform, X also expressed concerns that the implementation of the legislation is “infringing on the public’s right to free expression,” and Reform UK have committed to repeal the legislation. The government denied the suggestion that the Act compromises free speech. The BBC, Daily Mail, Guardian, The Telegraph, Reuters and Sky News have more information.

Andy Ngo, a journalist and social media influencer, has filed a defamation claim against the Guardian in relation to a review of a Mumford and Sons album published in March 2025, according to The Telegraph. The Guardian article explained that musician, Winston Marshall had left the band in 2021 after he praised Ngo’s controversial book, Unmasked, on social media causing a public backlash.

Having initially declined to confirm or deny whether it received an order from the UK government to grant special access to users’ private data, Google has now stated it has never received a ‘Technical Capabilities Notice.’ The confirmation follows a letter from U.S. Senator Ron Wyden that raised concerns about secret surveillance demands. Wyden urged an investigation into the U.K.’s surveillance practices, referencing reports that Apple had been ordered to create a backdoor for encrypted data. The Washington Post reported on the development.

Internet and Social Media

Ofcom has launched an investigation into 34 sites that host pornographic content to determine whether they have highly effective age verification checks in place, which are required under the Online Safety Act to restrict access by minors.

Data privacy and data protection

The ICO fined the Scottish charity Birthlink after it destroyed an estimated 4,800 personal records, including the handwritten letters and photographs of birth parents. Around 10% of the destroyed files were irreplaceable, meaning that individuals’ access to their family history may have been permanently lost.

The ICO has issued guidance on profiling tools for online safety to assist organisations that carry out profiling, as well as guidance on disclosing documents in response to FOI requests and Subject Access Requests.

The Brett Wilson Media Law blog has an article analysing the recent first-tier tribunal decision that held the ICO had acted within its powers when issuing a monetary penalty notice worth £12.7 million to TikTok for data protection breaches.

Hill Dickinson has an article analysing a recent High Court decision which held that oral disclosure from an employee’s personnel file amounts to data processing.

Surveillance

The Metropolitan Police will more than double its use of live facial recognition, increasing deployments from four to up to ten times a week, as part of a wider restructuring in response to budget cuts and staff losses. The technology, which biometrically scans faces in real time against a police watchlist, will also be used at Notting Hill Carnival in late August. While the Met claims it is only used to target serious offenders, critics warn of privacy risks and the urgent need for proper regulation and oversight. The Guardian, ITVX, The Standard, Sky News, The Independent, BBC and Computer Weekly reported on the development.

Newspaper Journalism and regulation

David Dinsmore, former editor of The Sun newspaper and current News UK executive, has been appointed as the UK government’s new permanent secretary for communications to oversee government messaging. The appointment has sparked criticism, particularly from Hillsborough families and press reform campaigners, who argue that Dinsmore’s long association with The Sun, a paper accused of spreading damaging falsehoods about the Hillsborough disaster and phone-hacking scandals, makes him unfit for public office. The Guardian, BBC, Independent, The Telegraph, Press Gazette and Civil Service World covered the appointment. Read Hacked Off’s statement here.

IPSO

Statements in open court and apologies

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

New Issued cases

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

Last week in the courts

On 28 and 29 July 2025, the Court of Appeal (Dingemans, Elisabeth Laing and Warby LJJ ) heard the appeal in the case of Blake v Fox. The appellant, Laurence Fox, had advocated a boycott of Sainsbury’s on social media for its policy of offering a safe space to black members of staff during Black History Month. In response, the respondents tweeted that Fox was “a racist” and in response Fox called them each a “paedophile,” leading them to sue him for defamation. At trial, Collins Rice J ruled in favour of the claimants, finding that Fox had seriously harmed their reputation and that the defence of reply to attack did not apply.  On appeal, the appellant argued that the first-instance decision should be quashed due to judicial errors, specifically in assessing whether Fox caused serious harm – considering the words used and their context – and in how damages were calculated. The respondents argued that the appeal lacked merit and that the judge was entitled to reach the conclusion she did based on the serious reputational impact of the tweets. The 5RB website has a news item about the hearing, which was also covered by LBC, The Herald and Times & Star.  The hearing was livestreamed. Judgement was reserved.

On 28 to 31 July 2025, there was a trial in the case of Sayed Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari v Syed Tauqeer Bukhari QB-2020-001139 before Aidan Eardley KC.

On 29 July 2025, there were hearings in Oldknow & ors v Evans QB-2021-001196 and Tattersall v Tattersall QB-2022-002867.

On 30 July 2025, there were hearings in Aluko v Barton KB-2024-001987 and Emerging Media Ventures Ltd v Kundra KB-2025-001918.

Media law in other jurisdictions

Australia

Victorian Liberal deputy leader and former tennis star Sam Groth and his wife Brittany are threatening defamation and privacy legal action against News Corp over articles published in the Herald Sun and claims made in social media posts, speculating about how their relationship began. The Groths argue the reports are baseless, harmful, and amounted to malicious gossip rather than journalism. They are demanding a full retraction, apology, and disclosure of sources and intend to pursue further legal action if the matter is not resolved. The Guardian, Financial Review, The Age, Brisbane Times and The Sydney Morning Herald covered the story.

On 28 July 2025, the District Court of New South Wales struck out the defamation claim of Kim v Kim [2025] NSWDC 278. The plaintiff sought default judgement due to the defendant’s failure to file a defence; the defendant sought summary dismissal of the claim due to the plaintiff’s failure to provide particulars of harm. The court struck out the plaintiff’s claim due to the failure to provide any particulars of serious harm or to properly set out the imputations complained of [9, 13] among other defects. The judge confirmed that, had she not struck out the claim, she would still not have entered default judgement, as the plaintiff would still be required to prove serious harm.

Canada

On 28 July 2025, the Court of Appeal of Alberta allowed the appeal and struck out the claim in the defamation case of Tuharsky v O’Chiese First Nation, 2025 ABCA 267. The claim arose in relation to three allegedly defamatory statements made in court pleadings and in oral submissions before a court officer. The court ruled that the chambers judge erred in dismissing the applications to strike out the claim, as the statements complained of were made in circumstances in which the defence of absolute privilege applies.

On 29 July 2025, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed a motion to intervene as a friend of the court, filed by the Centre for Free Expression (CFE), in the case of Solmar Inc. v. Hall, 2025 ONCA 570. The plaintiffs are property developers who brought a claim against the defendant in relation to social media posts that accused them of corrupt practices and bribing public officials. The defendant’s motion to dismiss the action was refused; he appealed the decision. The judge ruled that the CFE should not be permitted to intervene as intervention is only granted sparingly, where it can be of real assistance to the court [16], and many of its submissions would merely repeat those of the defendant [19].

On 31 July 2025, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal in the case of Galati v. Toews, 2025 ONCA 568. The plaintiff, a well-known lawyer who had been instructed to challenge the government’s COVID-19 restrictions, brought an action against the respondents for criticism of the way the cases were pleaded and handled. The court ruled that the motion judge did not err in dismissing the action, holding that the respondents’ statements were on a matter in the public interest and that the anti-SLAPP provision requirements had not been met.

On the same day, the Superior Court of Justice dismissed an anti-SLAPP motion in the case of Barrie Municipal Not-Profit Housing Corporation v. Dyck, 2025 ONSC 4476. The claim concerns a Facebook campaign that the defendant launched against a not-for-profit housing corporation, which she alleged was intentionally depriving tenants of foods and necessities. The judge rejected the motion on the basis that the expression was a personal attack on the plaintiff “cloaked under a guise of public concern,” [4].

Research and Resources

Next week in the courts

There are no media law cases listed next week.

Reserved judgements

Sayed Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari v Syed Tauqeer Bukhari, 28 – 31 July 2025 (Aidan Eardley KC).

Blake v Fox – 28 and 29 July 2025 (Dingemans, Elisabeth Laing and Warby LJJ )

Naseer v Raja – 21 to 24 July 2025 (Spearman KC).

Hegab (“Hijab”) v The Spectator (1828) Ltd – 14-18 July 2025 (Johnson J).

Kul and Ors v DWF Law LLP – 4 and 5 June 2025 (Eady J).

Clarke v Guardian News and Media – 4 March – 4 April and 11 April 2025 (Steyn J).

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