The highly anticipated trial of Lawrence and ors v Associated News Ltd (ANL) KB-2022-003316 began on Monday 19 January 2026. The claimants are Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Elizabeth Hurley, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Sir Simon Hughes, Prince Harry and Sadie Frost Law. The trial is listed for 10 weeks.

The claim is for misuse of private information over the period 1993 to 2011.  The claimants allege that ANL carried out or commissioned unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” private records and accessing private phone conversations.

ANL vehemently denies the allegations, arguing the claims are belated, speculative and driven by lawyers rather than contemporaneous complaints. On the opening day, ANL served a substantial defence and criticised late disclosure by Prince Harry’s legal team. The allegation that ANL commissioned burglary was struck out before trial, according to The Press Gazette. Prince Harry, who gave evidence of Wednesday, says the alleged intrusions caused him severe distress and paranoia, while ANL maintains that the articles complained of disclosed no private information and were lawfully obtained. The BBC, Sky News, Guardian, The Telegraph, Press Gazette, The Mirror, The Daily Express provided ongoing coverage of the case. 5RB and Law 360 have summaries.

The House of Lords passed an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill which would impose a social media ban for under 16s. The Bill will now return to the House of Commons to be debated by MPs. The Government has launched a three-month consultation that will “seek views from parents, young people and civil society” on the effectiveness of the proposed measure, which would mirror the similar ban imposed in Australia last year.

At least 80 Labour MPs are reported to support the ban and Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has argued that there is a “strong case” for the measure. The mother of murdered teenager, Brianna Ghey has also voiced supported for a ban, arguing that Ofcom is not doing enough to protect children. However, Ian Russell, whose daughter Molly Rose died by suicide after watching self-harm content online, argued that the Government should enforce existing laws, instead of “implementing sledgehammer techniques.” The Molly Rose Foundation is joined by the NSPCC, Childnet and 39 other individuals and organisations who suggest the measure is not the right solution. The BBC, Sky News, The Telegraph, The Guardian, Financial Times, Reuters and ITVX have more information.

On 23 January 2026, Collins Rice J handed down judgement in the case of Hurst v Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal [2026] EWHC 85 (Admin). The Administrative Court overturned a £50,000 fine imposed by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on Osborne Clarke partner Ashley Hurst for the alleged misuse of a “without prejudice” email header. The email was sent on behalf of former chancellor Nadhim Zahawi to tax lawyer and blogger Dan Neidle, who had published allegations about Zahawi’s tax affairs. The Court held that the tribunal had misdirected itself in law, adopted an inadequately examined narrative that Hurst was seeking to suppress publication, and failed to assess whether his position was properly arguable, concluding that the decision was insufficiently reasoned, legally flawed and unfair. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s statement is available here. More information is available from Legal Cheek and The Law Society Gazette.

Internet and Social Media

TikTok has reached an agreement allowing it to continue operating in the US, ending a long-running dispute over national security concerns tied to its Chinese ownership. Under the deal, reached after repeated delays to a threatened 2025 ban, TikTok’s recommendation algorithm has been licensed to its US owners and will be trained solely on US data, though the practical impact of the change on the app’s 200 million American users remains uncertain. The BBC, Sky News, FT, The Guardian, CNN, Politico, Forbes and The New York Times covered the development.

Doughty Street Chambers has an article examining the current legal landscape and proposed legislative response relating to AI-generated sexual deepfake imagery.

Data privacy and data protection

The ICO has fined Allay Claims Ltd and ZMLUK Limited a total of £225,000 for widespread breaches of PECR after they sent millions of unsolicited marketing messages without valid consent. Allay Claims was fined £120,000 for sending over 4 million promotional SMS messages about PPI tax refunds without a lawful opt-out, while ZMLUK was fined £105,000 for sending more than 67 million marketing emails using third-party data that did not provide recipients with informed, specific consent. In both cases, the investigation found that the companies could not rely on the soft opt-in exemption and had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent unlawful direct marketing.

Surveillance

The High Court will hear the trial in the case of Thompson & Carlo v Metropolitan Police Service, challenging the Met Police’s use of live facial recognition (LFR) on Tuesday 27th and Wednesday 28th January. The judicial review argues that the use of the surveillance technology violates the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, as the Met’s policy is so permissive that it cannot be in accordance with the law. The case follows the landmark Court of Appeal judgement in 2020 which found that South Wales Police’s use of the technology was unlawful. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission has also been granted permission to intervene and maintains that the Met’s current LFR policy contravenes Articles 8, 10 and 11 of the ECHR.

Newspaper Journalism and regulation

On 23 January 2026, the High Court granted a transparency order permitting The Sunday Times to name Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust in its reporting on fabricated or induced illness (FII) (formerly known as Munchausen syndrome by proxy). The Sunday Times had already reported on the increasing allegations of FII against parents and raised concerns about the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health’s 2021 Guidelines. In the underlying proceedings, a Local Authority had applied for a care order alleging a young child in hospital was subject to FII. Lieven J held that there is clearly a legitimate public interest in reporting on how the Family Court deals with accusations of FII and the reporting aligns with the principle of open justice. There was also limited danger of the child being identified if the Trust was named and the risk of protest at the hospital was hypothetical. 5RB has a summary.

The First Tier Tribunal allowed in part an appeal brought by BBC journalist Alex Homer against the ICO’s decision upholding Walsall Council’s refusal of his Freedom of Information Request (Home v ICO & Anor [2026] UKFTT 100 (GRC)). The request sought information contained in a Serious Case Review on child sexual abuse in the West Midlands. The Tribunal held that both the Council and ICO failed to adopt a sufficiently detailed approach to the disclosure, noting that much of the information could be disclosed without infringing data subjects’ rights. It further held that non-redacted special category data could be disclosed for journalistic purposes in the public interest connected to the investigation of unlawful acts and dishonesty. The Tribunal also found that the remaining exemptions relied upon by the Council did not apply. The Council was ordered to publish a redacted version of the Serious Case Review to the BBC. 5RB has a summary.

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 were two defamation (libel and slander) claims issued on the media and communications list last week.

Last week in the courts

As mentioned above, on Monday 19 January 2026, the trial in Lawrence and ors v Associated Newspapers KB-2022-003316 began. The trial is listed for 10 weeks.

On the same day, Eady J dismissed the claim and ordered the claimants to pay costs in the MPI case of Feldman v Gambling Commission. The case was brought by two former gambling executives, Kenny Alexander and Lee Feldman, who are separately facing criminal charges for bribery and fraud. The Claimants alleged that the Gambling Commission breached their right to privacy in the context of their attempted takeover of online casino group 888, causing reputational damage. They contended that the regulator unlawfully disclosed and collaborated on statements about a licence review, which had been triggered by concerns arising from a HMRC bribery investigation into their company. The Gambling Commission denied wrongdoing, arguing its actions were necessary, lawful and in the public interest, given that the Claimants were suspects in a serious investigation and the disclosures revealed no private information. The judgement was subject to a temporary reporting restriction, but the decision was covered by The Guardian. Read the Gambling Commission’s statement here.

On the same day, Aidan Eardley KC handed down judgment on preliminary issues in the defamation case of RAJ v MSH [2026] EWHC 80 (KB). The Defendant had sought to challenge her degree classification, after narrowly missing a 2:1. Some of her classes had been taught and assessed by the Claimant. The Defendant sent an email to the University Registry Team (the Review Request) and an appeal against her degree classification (the Academic Appeal), which the Claimant alleged were defamatory.

The Court held that the statements complained of in the Review Request bore the defamatory meaning that the Claimant: (i) sexually harassed and victimised the Defendant by refusing to address her complaints unless she got close to him; (ii) improperly sought to initiate a sexual relationship with her; (iii) manipulated her, after the Defendant reluctantly responded to his advances, by falsely leading her to believe she would be awarded a 2:1 degree; and (iv) targeted and discriminated against the Defendant because she wears a hijab and refused to socialise with him [33]. With the exception of meaning (ii), these were all held to be statements of fact.

The statements complained of in the Academic Appeal were, likewise, held to be allegations of fact, bearing the meanings that the Claimant (i) non-consensually forced the defendant to enter into a sexual relationship by threatening to reduced her grades, (ii) nonetheless reduced her grades because she refused his demands for penetrative sex; (iii) failed to disclose his relationship with her to the exam board; and (iv) is guilty of sexually harassing and victimising the Defendant [40].  The Court also held that the Claimant may rely on the meanings pleaded in his amended particulars of claim in relation to his malicious falsehood action.

On Tuesday 20 January 2026 there was a hearing in the case of Al Masarir v Kingdom of Saudi Arabia QB-2019-003909.

On Thursday and Friday 22 and 23 January 2026 there was a two-day hearing in the case of Ahluwalia v Verma KB-2023-001466.

On the same day, DHCJ Vassall-Adams KC handed down judgement in the case of Ali v Hussain [2026] EWHC 112 (KB). The Defendant posted four videos on two TikTok accounts accusing the Claimant, a former receptionist at Pongs Forge International Sports Centre, of racially abusing, victimising and harassing him and of being a racist. The videos caused the Claimant serious reputational harm, having been shared with tens of thousands of TikTok users, repeated by other members of Pongs Forge and resulting in the Claimant no longer receiving invitations to his local Mosque. The Defendant’s defence of truth failed, as the allegation of racism was inherently implausible, as was the accusation of harassment, which also lacked any evidential basis. The Claimant was awarded £50,000 in damages and aggravated damages, a permanent injunction and an order requiring the defendant to summarise the judgement on his TikTok account. 5RB has a summary.

Media law in other jurisdictions

Canada

The Canadian government has reversed its plans to ban TikTok from operating in Canada after reaching a settlement with the company, formalised by the Federal Court. The government asked the court to set aside its November 2024 ban order, and the matter has been returned to the Industry Minister for a fresh review, with TikTok agreeing to participate in a future regulatory process; the court did not rule on the merits of the case. The Michael Geist blog analyses the policy.

France

French President Emmanuel Macron has announced plans to fast-track legislation banning social media use for under-15s, with a parliamentary vote due on Monday and the aim of enforcing the ban by September 2026. Framing the move as protecting children from commercial and algorithmic manipulation, Macron said it would help ensure young people “stay children,” potentially making France the next major democracy to impose a sweeping youth social media ban. The Independent, CNN, France 24, EuroNews and EurActiv have more information.

Pakistan

A Pakistani court has sentenced two human rights lawyers to 17 years’ imprisonment each over social media posts deemed hostile to the state and its security institutions. The verdict, delivered a day after their arrest in Islamabad, followed allegations under cybercrime laws that they disseminated anti-state content aligned with banned groups. The couple deny the charges, which have drawn condemnation from domestic and international rights organisations. ABC News, Jurist, Arab News and The Economic Times covered the story.

Research and Resources

Next week in the courts

The trial in Baroness Lawrence v Associated Newspapers  KB-2022-003316 with continue on Monday 26 January 2026 and will continue all week before Nicklin J.

On Monday 26 January 2026 Saini J will hand down judgment in the case of Al Masarir v Kingdom of Saudi Arabia QB-2019-003909.

The trial of a  preliminary issue on limitation in the Mirror Newspapers Hacking Litigation, Various Claimants v MGN  will begin on Tuesday 27 January 2026 before Fancourt J and is listed for 10 days.

On 27 January 2026, there will be a hearing in the case of Belafonte v News Group Newspapers Ltd KB-2025-000463.

On Thursday 29 January 202, there will be a hearing of an application in the case of  Baroness Lawrence v Associated Newspapers

On 29 and 30 January 2026 there will be a hearing  in the case of  Emerging Media Ventures Ltd v Kundra KB-2025-001918

Reserved judgements

We are not aware of any reserved judgments in the MAC List.

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