A man who was fined for burning a copy of the Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London has won his appeal against his conviction. Hamit Coskun shouted abusive comments about Islam as he held the flaming book aloft in Rutland Gardens, Knightsbridge, on 13 February 2025.

In June, he was found guilty at Westminster Magistrates’ Court of a religiously aggravated public order offence and fined £240. On 10 October 2025, Mr Justice Bennathan, sitting in Southwark Crown Court, said that while burning a Quran might be something “many Muslims find desperately upsetting and offensive”, the right to freedom of expression “must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb”. The BBC has more information here.

Government ID photos of about 70,000 global users of Discord, a popular messaging and chat platform among video gamers, may have been exposed after hackers compromised a company contracted to carry out age verification checks. Some users’ names, email addresses and other contact details, IP addresses and messages with Discord’s customer service agents may also have been taken. The attacker has been trying to extort a ransom from the company. No full credit card details or passwords were seized. The Guardian has more information here.

Internet and Social Media

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has confirmed that the legal tests have been met to designate Google with strategic market status (SMS) in general search and search advertising services. The UK’s new digital markets competition regime came into force on 1 January 2025, allowing the CMA to take targeted and proportionate action to improve competition in digital markets, helping to drive innovation, investment and growth across the UK economy. Designating Google with SMS is not a finding of wrongdoing and does not introduce any immediate requirements. However, it enables the CMA to consider proportionate, targeted interventions to ensure that general search services are open to effective competition, and that consumers and businesses that rely on Google can have confidence that they are treated fairly. Read the CMA’s press statement here.

Brett Wilson has published the first of three articles exploring the legal issues arising from social media groups designed to allow people to check whether a partner, or prospective partner, is dating other people and/or cheating on an existing partner. This first instalment considers Misuse of Private Information.

Data Privacy and Data Protection

Mishcon de Reya’s Data Matters blog has an article analysing the sparse landscape for deepfake legislation in the UK, which provides victims with only a complex patchwork of existing laws including intellectual property (IP), data protection, defamation and malicious falsehood. Read the article here.

The IAPP blog has an article exploring how IP obfuscation tools are undermining privacy compliance strategies and making opt-out mechanisms and geoblocking nearly obsolete. IP obfuscation entails concealing a user’s IP address and associated geographic location. While user verification controls may support privacy compliance, they could also create a privacy paradox, shifting the noncompliance blame from website operators, online service providers or even artificial intelligence developers to users, while also undermining culpability of dangerous content and technology. Read the article here.

The Panopticon Podcast has returned with its fifth Episode. Christopher Knight shares his experience and insight on the intersection between public law and data protection. There is information on how to listen here.

Surveillance

Farmfoods, a frozen food retailer with over 340 stores nationwide, have introduced facial recognition cameras in an attempt to tackle shoplifting. Privacy group Big Brother Watch warn that using biometric surveillance in this way treats all customers as potential suspects and raises serious data protection issues. The Scottish Sun has more information here.

The IAPP blog has an opinion piece arguing that facial recognition technology, if properly constrained, need not threaten privacy. The article explains how policy frameworks can foster innovation while protecting privacy by recognizing that the privacy risk of a small-scale system is fundamentally different than that of a large one. Many practical applications of face recognition sit between the “one-to-one” and “one-to-everyone” extremes.

Art, Music and Copyright

IPKat has an article analysing the integration of Spotify within ChatGPT. Users can “request tracks, albums or playlists or ask for recommendations based on mood or genre” within ChatGPT. Spotify has been quick to emphasise that the app’s integration is on a consensual, opt-in basis for users, and that no “music, podcasts or any other audio or visual content on [their] platform [shared] with OpenAI [will be] used for training purposes.” However, the integration with ChatGPT only a few weeks after the streaming platform released AI safeguards in response to alleged artist impersonation on the platform in the face of accusations of AI-generated ‘ghost artists’ highlights the serious risk of artist exploitation. The article argues Spotify’s integration within ChatGPT, even consensually, provides plenty a reason to remain cautious.

IPSO

Statements in Open Court and Apologies

Sky Sports has broadcast a full apology by Jamie Redknapp to Lord Sugar over wholly false statements made by Mr Redknapp on the channel, concerning Lord Sugar’s time as Chairman of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Mr Redknapp and Sky Sports have also agreed to make a substantial payment, at Lord Sugar’s request, to Great Ormond Street Hospital, in lieu of damages, as well as paying all of his legal costs. The Sun, The Telegraph and MailOnline are some of the many news outlets to cover the apology.

New Issued Cases

There were three defamation claims and one data protection claim filed on the media and communications list last week.

Last Week in the Courts

On 6 October 2025, the Upper Tribunal (Heather Williams J, UT Judges Church and Butler) handed down judgment in The Information Commissioner v Clearview AI and Privacy International [2025] UKUT 319. In May 2022, the Commissioner fined Clearview £7.5m and issued an enforcement notice for scraping images of UK residents from the web and social media, and then uploading them into its global online database that could be used for facial recognition by any Clearview customer. The company not only enables identification of those people, but monitors their behaviour, offering it as a commercial service. Clearview appealed the fine and enforcement notice to the FTT, with the ICO appealing the FTT’s decision to the UT. The UT upheld three of the Commissioner’s four grounds of appeal, concluding that: (i) Clearview’s processing of personal information is related to monitoring of behaviour of UK residents. (ii) Clearview’s processing does not fall outside the reach of UK data protection law on the basis that it provided its services to foreign law enforcement and government agencies. (iii) The FTT applied the law incorrectly in finding that Clearview’s processing of personal information was outside the material scope of the UK GDPR under Article 2(1)(a). Read the ICO’s full summary of the judgment here.

On 8 October 2025, the Court of Appeal (Carr LCJ, Dame Victoria Sharp P and Coulson LJ) handed down judgment in Chief Constable of Sussex Police & Anor v XGY [2025] EWCA Civ 1230, reversing the High Court’s decision and reinstating the striking out of claims arising from the disclosure of a domestic violence victim’s address during bail proceedings. The original claim was for damages against the chief constable of Sussex Police and the Crown Prosecution Service under the Human Rights Act and Data Protection Act and for breach of confidence and misuse of private information. The claimant, identified as XGY, made allegations against DYP who had been arrested on a domestic violence charge. The claimant’s claims against the CPS were struck out on the grounds of advocate immunity as were the claims against the police, on the ground that the police were entitled to rely on the same immunity as advocates by extension. The Court of Appeal found it was wrong for the judge who allowed the appeal in the High Court to state XGY’s address was irrelevant to DYP’s bail hearing [60]. The Court of Appeal went on to state that the core immunity of advocates is “far wider in scope” and “not limited to evidential matters” but also to “statements (said or written) made in court” [65 (ii)]. The judges’ expressed their sympathy to XGY in striking out her claims against the police and CPS, but reaffirmed that public policy and long-established principle meant that she did not have a legal remedy in these proceedings for what happened [99]. The Law Society Gazette and Solicitors Journal have more information.

On the same day, Collins Rice J handed down judgment in Tattersall v Tattersall [2025] EWHC 2558 (KB). The defendant’s application to strike out or dismiss the claimant’s claim was successful. The claim was between a widow and her mother-in-law over a single Facebook post in 2021, which was deleted in 2023. The post by the widow/defendant made several insinuations about the claimant/mother-in-law; the only statements with meanings found to bear defamatory tendencies related to the assertion that the claimant had been trying to deprive the defendant of her home and that the claimant had been telling lies about the defendant. Collins Rice J found that the case on serious harm was bound to fail [42]. Carruthers Law and Solicitors Journal provide further summaries.

On 9 October 2025, Richard Spearman KC handed down judgment in favour of the former Pakistani military officer Brigadier Rashid Naseer (Retd) against YouTuber and former army officer Major Adil Farooq Raja, Naseer v Raja [2025] EWHC 2565 (KB). Adil Raja used his platform of over 1.6 million followers across X, Facebook and YouTube to accuse Naseer of election rigging, corruption, and links to the murder of journalist Arshad Sharif. Nine of the ten posts complained of were found to be seriously defamatory of Naseer and caused serious reputational harm. None of the posts attracted a public interest defence under s.4 Defamation Act 2013. Spearman awarded £50,000 in damages to Naseer, an injunction restraining Raja from repeating similar accusations again and costs of £300,000. Geo.TV, Policy Wire and The Express Tribune have more information.

On 10 October 2025 Nicklin J handed down judgment in the case of Baroness Doreen Lawrence and others v Associated Newspapers [2005] EWHC 2573 (KB) following a CMC on 1 and 2 October 2025. He refused the Claimants’ amendment applications and allowed the Defendant’s strike out applications.

Media Law in Other Jurisdictions

Australia

On 9 October 2025, New South Wales’ Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Commissioner of Police (NSW Police Force) v Naser [2025] NSWCA 224. The landmark decision criminalised attending a “prohibited” protest by banning a planned pro-Palestine march to the Sydney Opera House scheduled for the weekend. The court ruled that anyone marching on the Opera House on Sunday 12 October 2025 could be held in contempt of court, as it sided with police against the Palestine Action Group due to “extreme” safety concerns. The Guardian and Australian have more information.

ECHR

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that the disbarment of Azerbaijani human rights lawyer Yalchin Imanov violated his rights to freedom of expression and private life, Imanov v Azerbaijan 62/20. Mr. Imanov’s was disbarred for public statements he made to the press in 2017 about the alleged torture of his client in Gobustan Prison. The ECHR found that this sanction was disproportionate and lacked sufficient justification. It emphasized that Mr. Imanov’s statements concerned a matter of public interest, were not baseless, and should have been protected under the Convention. Matrix Chambers provides a summary here.

Canada

The Michael Geist blog has an article arguing against the federal privacy commissioner’s recommendations following its investigation into TikTok’s privacy practices. The article finds the commissioner to have replaced privacy with increased surveillance.

United Arab Emirates

Researchers have discovered new spyware embedded in fake messaging apps being used to target people in the United Arab Emirates. The cybersecurity firm ESET said its experts found two Android spyware campaigns, dubbed ProSpy and ToSpy, which pose as Signal and ToTok — a free messaging and calling app that originated in the UAE. The spyware is installed through fake websites and app stores, and it allows sensitive data files, contacts, chat backups and media to be stolen. It also reloads the authentic apps in order to make itself look legitimate, ESET reports.

United States

Rapper Drake’s defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) has been thrown out with the court ruling that the company cannot be held responsible for promoting Kendrick Lamar’s hit diss track Not Like Us, Graham v UMG Recordings Inc 25-CV-0399 (JAV). US district judge Jeannette Vargas decided that the song’s lyrics express “non-actionable opinion” and therefore cannot be considered defamatory. “The issue in this case is whether Not Like Us can reasonably be understood to convey as a factual matter that Drake is a pedophile or that he has engaged in sexual relations with minors. In light of the overall context in which the statements in the recording were made, the court holds that it cannot.” The Guardian, Reuters, Pitchfork, Music Business Worldwide and Variety are some of the many news outlets to cover the ruling.

The association representing journalists who cover the US Department of Defense have condemned a new press access policy that could see reporters lose their access as early as next week, a development that would constrain the media’s ability to cover the world’s most powerful military. The Pentagon Press Association’s statement followed negotiations between the department and media outlets that resulted in the Pentagon revising some of its initial demands. The revised rules no longer require reporters to sign off individually on such policies but still ask them to affirm that they “understand” them. The association argues that puts unlawful restrictions on news gathering and, potentially, exposes journalists to prosecution and limits the public’s access to independent reporting on military affairs. Reuters has more information here.

Research and Resources

Next Week in the Courts 

On Monday 13 October 2025 Jay J will hear an injunction application in the case of Hayes (for Herself And On Behalf Of All Of The Officers And Employees Of The Second Claimant) and another v Overton and another KB-2025-002351

On Wednesday 15 October 2025 there will be a PTR in the case of Optosafe Ltd and ors v Robertson KB-2024-000054.

On Friday 17 October 2025 the court will hear the Defendant’s application for a GCRO in the case of Atole Timothy Enaholo v Claims Governance Totally PLC and another QB-2022-001025.

Reserved Judgments

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

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).