The civil courts in England and Wales remain on “Summer Vacation” until the Michaelmas term begins on Wednesday, 1 October 2025. This Round Up covers the decisions and developments related to media and information law since the Summer Vacation began on 1 August 2025.

On 22 August 2025, Mrs Justice Steyn handed down judgment dismissing Noel Clarke’s claim for defamation against The Guardian, Clarke v Guardian News and Media Ltd [2025] EWHC 2193 (KB). She found that Mr Clarke was not a “credible or reliable witness” [128] and the defences of truth and public interest were successful.

Steyn J found that each of the allegations made in the articles complained of were substantially true.  It had been established that Mr Clarke had “preyed on or harassed”, engaged in “bullying behaviour”, “unwanted sexual contact”, “sexually inappropriate behaviour and comments” and covert filming of female colleagues over number of years ([856]).

In relation to “public interest”, Steyn J found that the Guardian had established that the first article was published on a matter of public interest and honestly believed that publication was in the public interest.  The Judge held that the belief that publication was in the public interest was reasonable [893]-[1021], having regard to matters such as the steps taken to verify the matters published, the extent of the opportunity given to Mr Clarke to comment, and the tone and presentation of the article, each of the challenges raised by the claimant [893]. Inforrm provides a summary here. Brett Wilson, Press Gazette, Matrix Chambers, BBC, Financial Times and The Guardian are some of the many outlets to cover the ruling.

On 1 September 2025, Graham Linehan was arrested at Heathrow Airport on suspicion of inciting violence in relation to his posts on X. He has since been released on bail pending further investigation. The BBC, ITVX and Guardian are some of the many outlets to cover the arrest. The latest Media Law Podcast: Newscast provides commentary on how this arrest has been reported as a free speech issue.

On 6 September 2025, 890 people were arrested at a demonstration in London against the decision to proscribe Palestine Action. The Metropolitan Police said 857 arrests were for showing support for Palestine Action, while 33 were arrested for other offences, including 17 for assaults on police officers. Event organisers said protesters were “peacefully defying the ban” and accused the Met Police of making “false claims” about violence. Earlier in the month, the Home Office was given permission to challenge a ruling which allowed Palestine Action to appeal against its ban under terrorism legislation. The group’s co-founder, Huda Ammori, was granted permission to appeal in July 2025 after her lawyers argued the ban breached the right to freedom of expression. The BBC has more information here. The latest Media Law Podcast: Newscast provides commentary on these arrests.

On 1 August 2025, new legal duties came into force aiming to protect freedom of speech in universities. The rules claim to strengthen universities’ ability to actively promote academic freedom to ensure campuses are places where robust discussion can take place without fear of censorship of students, staff or external speakers expressing lawful opinions. Universities will also be banned from using non-disclosure agreements to silence victims of campus misconduct, protecting vulnerable individuals who may have faced harassment, abuse or sexual assault. The Office for Students has the power to investigate and issue fines where universities are found to have failed to protect free speech rights.

Internet and Social Media

Ofcom has launched investigations into the compliance of four companies that collectively run 34 pornography sites with new age-check requirements under the UK’s Online Safety Act: 8579 LLC, AVS Group Ltd, Kick Online Entertainment S.A. and Trendio Ltd. Since 25 July 2025, sites that allow users to upload pornographic material are required to use highly effective age assurance to prevent children from accessing that content. Ahead of this deadline, thousands of sites committed to doing this, rather than restricting access in the UK. Read Ofcom’s press release here.

Clean Up The Internet has an article that considers if social media regulation can help reduce crime levels in a more cost effective way and whether Ofcom is up to the task.

Data privacy and data protection

The director of a care home in Bridlington, Yorkshire, has been fined by the Information Commissioner’s Officer for refusing to respond to a request for a resident’s personal information – known as a subject access request (SAR). This is believed to be the first such prosecution of its type. While failure to comply with a SAR is usually treated as a civil matter, section 173 of the Data Protection Act 2018 makes it a criminal offence – once a SAR is received – to alter, erase, or conceal information to prevent disclosure. Criminal liability under section 173 can lie with the data controller itself, or with individual directors and staff, and all organisations should be alive to the possibility of prosecutions being brought. Mishcon de Reya has more information here.

On 18 August 2025, Privacy International (PI) issued a formal complaint to the ICO about the Home Office’s use of two automated tools in immigration enforcement operations, which PI argues do not adequately comply with the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018). Read PI’s press release here.

The Panopticon Blog has produced analysis of the recent Supreme Court decision in Department for Business and Trade v Information Commissioner [2025] UKSC 27, handed down on 23 July 2025. The judgment considers the public interest balancing test of Section 1(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Surveillance

The Metropolitan Police have announced an increase in their use of live facial recognition (LFR) technology by more than double. LFR involves the matching of faces caught on surveillance camera footage against a police watchlist in real time and will now be used up to 10 times a week across five days, up from the current four times a week across two days. The Met cited LFR as a key reason for the lack of disturbance at Notting Hill carnival over the August bank holiday but critics warn misidentification is “stop and search on steroids.” The HawkTalk blog has an article on LFR here. Privacy International has more information here.

On 13 August 2025, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) published guidance detailing key data protection themes that law enforcement must consider when deploying live facial recognition technology.  The Privacy and Information Security Law Blog has a summary here.

On 21 August 2025, the ICO initiated public consultations to refine certain ICO guidance following amendments to UK data protection law passed under the UK Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. These amendments include the introduction of a new lawful basis referred to as “recognized legitimate interest,” and a requirement for organizations to establish a data protection complaints process.

On 28 August 2025, the ICO initiated a public consultation on draft guidance on Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLTs), with a focus on blockchain. The guidance aims to assist organizations with their understanding of DLTs, in particular blockchain, and how data protection law may apply in different scenarios and transactions. The Privacy and Information Security Law Blog has more information here.

Newspaper Journalism and regulation

On 8 August 2025, a ban on court reporting of a case involving a woman accused of stabbing a four-year-old child was lifted following the imposition of an incorrect anonymity order. Charlie Moloney, a freelance journalist and News Associates media law tutor successfully challenged the anonymity order, allowing the case to be reported on more fully, and revealing the accused is the boy’s mother. The Press Gazette has more information here.

On 13 August 2025, National Police Chief’s Council and College of Policing issued new guidance for disclosing suspects’ details. Forces are encouraged to disclose ethnicity and nationality when suspects are charged in certain cases in a move that aims to ensure policing is more consistent, fair and transparent with this information, as well as addressing potential mis and disinformation. The new guidance responds to previous instances of false information spreading rapidly which resulted in risks to public order and safety. The latest Media Law Podcast: Newscast considers if this development entrenches racist reporting on crimes.

Two new TV shows shine a light on press intrusion and accountability. BBC’s Chloe Ayling: My Unbelievable Kidnapping and ITV’s The Hack document and dramatize a dark chapter in modern British journalism. Ayling’s documentary was released in August 2025 and The Hack begins in Autumn. Hacked Off provides commentary on the forthcoming series here.

Reform UK leader of Nottingham County Council Mick Barton has banned a local newspaper from speaking to him or any of his councillors following a disagreement about a story it ran on local government reorganisation. Barton has accused the newspaper of “consistently misrepresenting our policies, actions or intentions”. Critics have called the ban an attack on local democracy. The BBC and Guardian have more information.

Independent local news website Dorset Eye has won a legal dispute after being sued by a group protesting about the housing of asylum seekers on a barge. Alex Bailey and the group No To The Barge filed a defamation claim over five articles published on the website between 2024 and 2025. Dorset Eye is a member of Impress and the case was heard by an arbitrator under the regulator’s low-cost disputes resolution scheme (which is offered to publishers and claimants as an alternative to expensive courtroom litigation). Read the full arbitration ruling here. The Press Gazette has more information on the ruling 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 have been 19 new cases issued in the Media and Communications list since 1 August 2025 (9 defamation, 3 data  protection, 3 Norwich Pharmacal, 2 harassment, 1 misuse of private information and 1 miscellaneous)

Last month in the courts

On 5 August 2025, Mr Justice Johnson dismissed both the libel and data protection claims in Hegab v The Spectator  EWHC 2043 (KB). Johnson J found that while the article was defamatory, Mohammed Hegab failed to prove serious harm to his reputation and The Spectator successfully established a truth defence. The article complained of covered religious tensions in Leicester and Hegab was described as having “whipped up a mob” [91]. The judge noted that Hegab’s own conduct and social media presence likely caused equal or greater reputational damage than the article complained of [97]. There was no credible evidence that this article had damaged his reputation, on the contrary, there was “some evidence that the claimant positively revelled in any form of publicity” [100]. Brett Wilson and the Press Gazette have more information.

On 22 August 2025, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in data protection claim Farley & Ors v Paymaster (1836) Ltd (t/a Equiniti) [2025] EWCA Civ 1117. The case arose after the Respondent sent pension statements containing sensitive information to over 400 addresses which were out-of-date. Those affected brought a claim which was mostly struck out by Nicklin J in Farley & Ors v Paymaster (1836) Ltd (t/a Equiniti) [2024] EWHC 383 (KB). On appeal, Warby J agreed with the Appellant/Claimants that it was sufficient to plead they had suffered distress as a result of their data being sent to incorrect addresses – regardless of whether the private letters had actually been opened. The Panopticon Blog has a summary here. 5 Essex Chambers has more information here.

On 28 August 2025, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in PMC v Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board (Rev1) [2025] EWCA Civ 1126. The appeal raises important issues as to the jurisdictional foundation for the principle of open justice and derogations from that principle. The context is the grant of anonymisation orders and reporting restriction orders in clinical negligence cases brought by children and protected parties. The Court’s held that there is a limited power at common law to derogate from that principle in civil or family court proceedings by making, within proceedings, both (a) an order to withhold or anonymise the names of a party or witness, including withholding information that would identify that person (a withholding order) and (b) an order restricting the reporting of material disclosed during the proceedings, whether in open court or through the public availability of court documents (a reporting restrictions order). 5RB, Outer Temple Chambers, Hugh James, Brett Wilson and the Personal Injuries Bar Association provide summaries. The citation for the judgment under appeal can be was [2024] EWHC 2969 (KB).

Media law in other jurisdictions

Australia

As of August 2025, the Australian privacy regulator, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), has made a number of determinations in respect of data scraping activities which were found to have interfered with individuals’ privacy in breach of the Privacy Act. Data scraping is an automated process through which computer programs extract vast amounts of data from the internet at a faster rate than manual data collection methods. The collection and handling of personal information collected via data scraping raises significant privacy concerns, including potential contraventions of the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) under the Privacy Act 1988. The fact that personal information is published online and available for scraping does not negate the need for compliance with the APPs. DLA Piper has more information here.

Brazil

On 27 August 2025, Brazil’s Federal Senate approved Bill 2628/2022, establishing safeguards for children and adolescents in digital environments. If enacted, the law would be among the first Brazilian rules to regulate digital platforms — bringing new privacy and data protection requirements with several operational impacts for social networks, app stores, video games and other businesses. IAPP provides analysis of the proposed legislation here.

Canada

The Michael Geist blog has an article exploring how the Carney government is distancing itself from Justin Treudeau’s digital policy and considers if recent hints of an openness to re-considering the Online News Act and heightened pressure from the US on the Online Streaming Act suggests that a full overhaul may be a possibility.

Scotland

On 12 August 2025, the Inner House of the Court of Session dismissed an appeal from the firm Levy & McRae Solicitors, which was challenging the watchdog’s decision in October 2024 to refer 12 of 15 complaints against partner David McKie to the Law Society of Scotland (LSS) for investigation, Levy & McRae Solicitors LLP v Scottish Legal Complaints Commission [2025] CSIH 23. The complaints were submitted by Guardian News and Media Ltd, the publisher of The Guardian, in connection with Mr McKie’s alleged conduct in response to its proposed reporting of an investigation into the law firm’s then-client, Baroness Michelle Mone. Lawyers for Levy & McRae argued that legal professional privilege would mean that any investigation into Mr McKie would inevitably be unfair. Lord Beckett found that “the investigating body can determine, in light of what is ultimately available to it, whether it would be unfair to proceed with some or all of the complaints made…It is the proper body to resolve a conduct complaint that the Commission, in exercise of its statutory function, has found is not totally without merit.”

Thailand

On 22 August 2025, Thailand’s former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was cleared of royal defamation charges. Five days later, a former civil servant sentenced to a prison term of more than four decades on a charge of royal defamation was released by a royal pardon after serving just under one-fifth of her term. The two headlines have drawn attention to Thailand’s controversial defamation law not only because it has been used to punish things as simple as liking a post on Facebook, but also because anyone — not just royals or the authorities — can lodge a complaint. The main criticism is that it is used as a tool to quash political dissent.

United States

On 3 September 2025, summary judgment was granted in favour of the defendants in Jane Does 1–9 v Collins Murphy et al No. 7:20-cv-00947-DCC, 2025 WL 2533961. The claim was against several internet pornography companies after they discovered that videos secretly recorded of them while changing in a college locker room had been uploaded online. The court held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shielded the defendants from liability for user-generated content, and plaintiffs failed to show that any of defendants materially contributed to the illegal aspects of the videos. The court also found no evidence of a conspiracy or that defendants met the requirements to be considered beneficiaries of a sex trafficking venture under the TVPRA. Claims against defendants who merely licensed trademarks or placed ads were also rejected due to lack of personal jurisdiction or insufficient evidence of wrongdoing.

Research and Resources

Next week in the courts

We are not aware of any media law    cases listed before the new legal term begins on 1 October 2025.

Reserved judgements

Tattersall v Tattersall, 16 September 2025 (Collins Rice J)

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).

This Round Up was prepared by Colette Allen, the host of Newscast on Dr Thomas Bennett and Professor Paul Wragg’s The Media Law Podcast (@MediaLawPodcast).