On Friday 17 October 2025, the Court of Appeal handed down judgement in the case of handed down judgement in the appeal of Blake v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321.

The case concerned a series of tweets made after the actor, Laurence Fox, 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, each claimant tweeted that Fox was “a racist” and Fox replied, calling each of them a “paedophile.” The claimants sued for defamation and Fox counterclaimed. The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court’s order dismissing the defendant’s claim and reduced the claimants’ damages awards to £45,000 each. More information is available below.

Donald Trump has refiled a $15 billion defamation lawsuit against the New York Times, three of its reporters and the publisher Penguin Random House, after a judge dismissed his original case “as improper and impermissible.” The amended 40-page complaint repeats claims that the newspaper and a book ‘Lucky Loser’ published by Penguin Random House falsely portrayed Trump’s wealth and career, relying on “hopeless biased or discredited sources.” Judge Steven Merryday had earlier criticised the first 85-page filing as “repetitive” and “florid,” saying it failed to meet legal standards. The New York Times argued that the case is without merit, describing it as an attempt to silence independent journalism. The Guardian, NBC, New York Times, Variety, The Washington Post, The Hill and Fox News covered the development.

Doughty Street Chambers published a summary of Naseer v Raja [2025] EWHC 2565 (KB) and Matrix Chambers has a summary of Tattersall v Tattersall [2025] EWHC 2558 (KB), both defamation cases that were covered in last week’s round up.

Internet and Social Media

Ofcom has fined the website 4chan £20,000 for failing to provide a copy of its illegal harms risk assessment and confirm its worldwide revenue, marking the first penalty under the new Online Safety Act regime. The fine is set to increase £100 per day for 60 days or until the company provide the required information. 4chan issued a US case against Ofcom in August, arguing that the regulator’s enforcement of the Act infringes upon the free speech rights of Americans. Reuters, Politico, The Telegraph, Computing UK covered the decision.

The Centre for Internet and Society has an article highlighting the findings of a Stanford study that warns that 6 major AI companies are using user conversations to train their models by default, raising serious privacy concerns emphasising the need for clearer opt-out policies.

Data privacy and data protection

The ICO has fined outsourcing firm, Capita £14 million for major security failings that led to a 2023 cyberattack exposing the personal data of 6.6 million people. The breach, caused by a malicious file downloaded onto an employee’s device, allowed hackers to access and steal nearly a terabyte of data, including sensitive financial and criminal records. Investigators found that Capita failed to act promptly on security alerts, lacked adequate staffing in its security operations, and had not implemented key safeguards such as privilege controls or regular penetration testing. The BBC, Guardian, FT, Sky News, The Register and Computer Weekly covered the sanction.

Privacy International, who intervened in the Information Commissioner’s successful appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the decision that the ICO did not have jurisdiction over the data processing of photo-scraping company Clearview AI, have a summary of the judgement. DLA Piper’s Privacy Matters blog have more information.

The ICO have launched a consultation on how charities can use new rules under the Data (Use and Access) Act, which introduce a ‘charitable purpose soft opt-in’ allowing charities to send marketing emails and texts to potential supporters without prior consent, provided strict conditions are met. The consultation is open from 16 October to 27 November.

Surveillance

Greater Manchester Police have announced that they will begin using Live Facial Recognition technology, starting at Sale town centre on 21 and 23 October using two vans supplied by the Home Office. The cameras will take biometric face scans of members of the public as they walk by the vans and compare them against a police watchlist, alerting officers to matches. However, human rights groups have warned against the expansion of LFR software, particularly in the absence of legislative safeguards. ITVX and Manchester Evening News covered the development.

Newspaper Journalism and regulation

Ofcom has ruled that the BBC committed a “serious breach” of the Broadcasting Code by using the son of a Hamas official as the narrator of its Gaza documentary ‘Gaza: How to Survive A Warzone’ without disclosing his family ties. The regulator said the omission was materially misleading and risked undermining public trust in the BBC’s factual programming. As a sanction, the BBC must broadcast Ofcom’s findings on BBC2 at 9pm on a date chosen by the regulator. Press Gazette, BBC, Sky News, The Telegraph, The National, London Evening Standard, The Times of Israel and The Times of India covered the ruling.

IPSO

We are not aware of any IPSO rulings from the past week.

Statements in open court and apologies

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

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

On Monday 13 October 2025, Jay J heard 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 was a PTR in the case of Optosafe Ltd and ors v Robertson KB-2024-000054.

On Thursday 16 October 2025, Griffiths J handed down judgement in the case of AXB v CYD [2025] EWHC 2642 (KB). The case relates to four videos published on social media, which the claimant alleges carry the meaning that she is (i) an obsessive and mentally ill stalker who has pursued the defendants and (ii) the person behind an Instagram account on which she posts dishonest content. The claimant sought injunctive relief in respect of her libel action to prevent these accusations from being repeated, however, at the time of the hearing, she had not filed Particulars of Claim or issued a Claim Form, as she had been unable to obtain the defendants’ addresses [10]. The judge refused to make the interim injunction order in respect of the libel and harassment claims, as there was a real prospect that the libel claim might fail [56-60] and there was no evidence of threat of any harassing action by a defendant [75]. However, the court granted the interim injunction against the third defendant for the claimant’s misuse of private information claim, given the publication of her home address, telephone number and images of her child online [66-68]. The court also granted orders for anonymity and restrictions on public access to evidence, given the evidence that the claimant has received death threats and is in serious fear for her and her child’s lives due to a storm of online abuse [80].

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

As mentioned above, on the same day, the Court of Appeal (Dingemans, Elisabeth Laing and Warby LJJ) handed down judgement in the appeal of Blake v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321. At first instance, Collins Rice J dismissed Fox’s counterclaims, ruling that the defendant had failed to prove any of the “racist” tweets caused or were likely to cause serious harm to his reputation. The High Court awarded the claimants damages of £90,000 each, rejecting Fox’s defence that his tweets had not caused serious reputational harm or that they were alternatively privileged statements made in self-defence of his reputation ([2024] EWHC 146 (KB)).

The appellant successfully advanced two grounds of appeal: (i) the judge erred in law in her approach to his case on serious harm and (ii) it was not open to the judge to find that the claimants’ tweets did not cause serious harm [59]. Delivering the leading judgement of the Court of Appeal, Warby LJ held, with regard to the first ground of appeal, that Collins Rice J wrongly conflated the issue of general harm to the defendant’s reputation with the distinct claim that the claimants’ tweets had caused damage to his career, when each required separate analysis [73-74]. The High Court judgement violated the rule in Dingle by inferring that the defendant had acquired a bad reputation from previous third-party publications and misapplied the causation test for determining whether the tweets damaged the defendant’s career. In respect of the second ground of appeal, Warby J held that the serious harm requirement was clearly satisfied in respect of each claimant’s tweet, noting that the defendant did not admit – and the claimants had not pleaded – that Mr Fox already had a reputation as a racist and the further circulation of the tweets by the defendant did not undermine his case [90-92].

The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court’s order dismissing the defendant’s claim and remitted the claim to the High Court for a retrial. In respect of the claimants’ claims, the Court of Appeal upheld liability, but reduced the damages awards to £45,000 each, holding that the High Court had not accounted for the defendant’s mitigatory efforts. The BBC, London Evening Standard, Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph, Sky News and The National reported on the ruling and Solicitors Journal provides a summary.

Media law in other jurisdictions

Canada

On 15 October 2025, the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the plaintiff’s claim in the case of Kovach-Durham v. Ampong, 2025 BCSC 2013. The plaintiff filed the claim for assault and defamation following an altercation outside the defendant’s barbershop and a subsequent exchange with the owner on Facebook, in which the plaintiff encouraged his followers not to support the business and the defendant replied with his version of events. The judge found that plaintiff’s reputation was not harmed by the posts, as he did not have a reputation in the local area and was not referred to by name. The court held that even if the words were defamatory, the defendant would have the defence of justification.

The Law Bytes blog has an article examining Senate Bill S-209 which would allow the government to require age verification for online services. The Bill will make it an offence to make pornographic material available to young people, however experts have concerns that the drafting is overly broad, such that it could permit the age verification requirements and site blocking orders apply to any website, including search engines and social media platforms.

Ireland

The High Court has awarded £100,000 in damages to the claimant in the defamation case of Jackson v Collins [2025] NI Master 16. The case arose after Irish reality TV star, Danielle Meagher published comments on Twitter in April 2018, alleging that the father of former rugby player Paddy Jackson had attempted to bribe the complainant in his son’s rape trial. The plaintiff obtained default judgement after the defendant failed to engage with the proceedings. The BBC, Belfast Telegraph, The Irish Times, Irish Legal News and Solicitors Journal covered the judgement.

Nigeria

Tonye Patrick Cole, a former All Progressives Congress candidate for governor in Rivers State, has demanded N20 billion in damages from Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike over alleged defamatory remarks made during a Channels Television interview on last month. Cole claims Wike falsely accused him of theft and corruption, causing severe reputational harm. He is seeking a public retraction and apology from Wike and Channels Television within 14 days, warning of legal action if they fail to comply. The Cable and The Nigeria Lawyer reported on the dispute.

United States

Civil liberties groups have warned that participants in nationwide “No Kings” protests against President Trump over the weekend could face extensive government surveillance, including facial recognition, phone hacking, cell site simulators, and social media monitoring by agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security and ICE. Reuters and The Irish Times have more information.

Research and Resources

Next week in the courts

On Monday 20 October 2025 there were be an application in the case of Hassan v youtube KB-2025-003203 before Johnson J.

On Tuesday 21 October 2025 there will be a hearing of applications in the case of (1) Infinox Capital Limited (2) Infinox Global Limited (3) Mena Infinox DMCC -v- Person(s) Unknown KB-2025-001984 before Tipples J.

On Wednesday 22 October 2025 there will be a PTR in the case of Ali v Hussain KB-2024-000959.

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