Netflix, Amazon’s Prime Video and Disney+ are to come under “enhanced regulation” by the UK media regulator, Ofcom, making the streaming giants subject to the same scrutiny as traditional broadcasters such as the BBC and ITV. This change stems from the Media Act 2024.

Under the new regulatory regime, which will also apply to public service broadcaster (PSB) video-on-demand services such as ITVX and Channel 4, the platforms will have to adhere to regulations relating to accurate and impartial news and protecting audiences from harmful and offensive material. The Guardian has more information here. Ofcom has also provided an update on their progress since the Media Act came into force in the last week.

The UK Government  launched a public consultation on  UK children’s digital wellbeing, covering social media age bans, curfews, AI chatbots and gaming.  This covers

  • Whether to impose a social media ban for under-16s (following Australia’s December 2025 ban)

  • Raising the digital age of consent (currently 13 under the UK GDPR)​

  • Limiting addictive design features such as infinite scrolling and streaks​

  • Restricting children’s access to AI chatbots and VPNs

  • Data preservation requirements following a child’s death​

There was a report on the BBC website.

On 26 February 2026 Ofcom published its annual report on how it uses it technology notice functions under section 128 of the Online Safety Act to remove online terrorism and/or child sexual abuse (CSEA) content.

Internet and Social Media

Hundreds of teenagers will be enlisted to trial social media bans in the coming months with overnight digital curfews and daily screen time limits also tested as part of Keir Starmer’s plan to crack down on the negative effects of smartphone use.

Instagram said it would notify parents if their teenager repeatedly searches for terms related to suicide or self-harm within a short period, as pressure grows for governments to follow Australia’s ban on the use of social media for under 16s. Britain said in January it was considering restrictions to protect children online, after Australia’s move in December. Spain, Greece, and Slovenia have in recent weeks said they are also looking at limiting access. Reuters has more information here.

On 23 February 2026, a Joint Statement on AI-Generated Imagery was published by 61 data protection authorities. The Joint Statement addresses concerns regarding artificial intelligence systems capable of generating realistic images and videos depicting identifiable individuals without their knowledge or consent. The Joint Statement notes particular concern about the potential risks to children and other vulnerable groups, including the possibility of cyber-bullying and exploitation. The Privacy and Cybersecurity Law blog has more information here.

The Cyberleagle blog has an article on the Online Safety Act Network’s (OSAN) recently published a 10-point plan to amend the Online Safety Act. The article discusses the plan’s commitment to “Insert a definition of safety by design into the Act to make clear to Ofcom and services what Parliament intended” and considers what “safety by design” might actually mean.

Data Privacy and Data Protection

The Information Commissioner’s Office has fined social media giant Reddit £14.47 million over its use of children’s data. The ICO says Reddit’s terms of service prohibited children under the age of 13 from using the platform, yet it claims the company did not introduce an age assurance mechanism until July 2025. The Privacy and Cybersecurity Law blog and the Register have more information.

Art, Music and Copyright

The BBC, Financial Times, Sky News, The Guardian, and The Telegraph have launched a coalition (Standards for Publisher Usage Rights) to challenge the unauthorized use of their journalism by AI systems. They aim for standardized licensing, fair compensation, and clearer transparency around AI use of news content. The move anticipates a government report on AI and copyright due mid-March 2026. The Financial Times has more information here.

Surveillance

The LSE Media Law blog has an article calling for higher scrutiny of EdTech, which has moved from a classroom supplement to a core school infrastructure. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of digital platforms that now manage teaching, assessment, attendance, behaviour monitoring, parent communication and safeguarding. The article considers what happens when commercial logic collides with children’s rights to privacy, quality education and protection from harm.

Newspapers, Journalism and Regulation

The Press Gazette has an article explaining the risks news publishers have taken in their decision to name Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor as a person who is under criminal investigation before any charge is made and the relevance of the public interest.

The UK government has imposed sanctions on two Georgian television channels (Imedi and Postv), citing dissemination of Russian disinformation relating to the Ukraine war. Reuters has more information here.

Crime reporters have welcomed updated police media guidelines for England and Wales which encourage interaction between officers and journalists at all levels, allow for off-the-record briefings, and explicitly protect the right of journalists to cover public incidents without interference. The Press Gazette has more information here.

Rival bidders for the Telegraph are considering an application for judicial review against the government, after ministers gave the owner of the Daily Mail permission to take a significant step towards clinching its £500m takeover. The Guardian has more information here.

IPSO

Decisions this week

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 was one defamation (libel and slander) claim filed last week.

Last Week in the Courts

As mentioned above, the trial in the case of Baroness Lawrence v Associated Newspapers continued before Nicklin J. The Press Gazette and Reuters cover the week’s proceedings.

On Wednesday 25 February 2026 there was a hearing in the defamation case of Odey v Financial Times KB-2024-001562.

On Thursday 26 February 2026 there was a hearing in the misuse of private information case of Clutterbuck v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire KB-2025-001245.

On the same day, the Privy Council (Lord Reed, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt, Lady Rose and Lord Richards) delivered judgment in Alexander v Gabriel (Trinidad and Tobago) [2026] UKPC 7. The question on this appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was justified in interfering with a judgment awarding damages for defamation in respect of two separate statements. The Board decided that the general damages must be reassessed, if only because the assessment was based on an interpretation of the second statement complained of, which was not been upheld. The Court of Appeal carried out a fresh assessment, but because they found that the only defamatory statement was the second statement, their award left out of account the first statement complained of. Overall, the Court of Appeal considered that an award of $10,000 “nominal damages” would be sufficient to compensate Mr Gabriel for hurt feelings and that the publication of its judgment was sufficient to vindicate his reputation. The Board has considered whether this award should be allowed to stand as damages for the second defamatory statement, leaving damages for the first defamatory statement to be separately assessed, but has concluded that this would be wrong in principle. Where—as here—there is more than one defamatory publication, it is the cumulative effect on the claimant’s reputation and feelings that must be assessed. It is therefore not appropriate to make separate awards for the two statements: a single, holistic assessment of damages is necessary. That is reason enough to set aside the Court of Appeal’s award. But the Board also considers that, even on its own terms, the award of only “nominal damages” made by the Court of Appeal was manifestly inadequate to compensate Mr Gabriel for the wrong done to him [49-51]. The appeal was allowed. The Board set aside the award of damages made by the Court of Appeal and remitted the case to the High Court for a fresh assessment of damages.

On the same day Nicklin J handed down a judgment in the case of Baroness Lawrence & Ors v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2026] EWHC 451 (KB) dealing with the question as to whether Mr Gavin Burrows should be permitted to give evidence remotely via video-link from abroad.   He held that, permitting Mr Burrows to give such evidence, subject to stringent safeguards and judicial oversight, was a proportionate and fair course which best serves the interests of justice in this case.

On Friday 27 February 2026 there was a hearing in the case of Smith v Copestake.

Media Law in Other Jurisdictions

Australia

Australia’s eSafety regulator has signalled a tougher media/tech crackdown extending beyond social media age minimum rules to artificial intelligence services. From 9 March 2026, search engines and app stores could be forced to block AI tools that do not implement robust age-verification systems to protect minors from harmful content (e.g., pornography, violence, self-harm). Non-compliance may attract fines up to A$49.5 million (US $35 million). Reuters has more information here.

Nine Entertainment CEO Matt Stanton and News Corp Australia’s Michael Miller have pressed the Prime Minister to prioritise the news media bargaining code, arguing that AI and tech giants are eroding traditional media revenue, particularly through “zero-click search” feeds and expired voluntary licensing deals. Miller has warned that 2026 is a “make or break” year for journalism. Their calls reflects broader concern that existing media law mechanisms are not keeping pace with digital transformation. The Guardian and Australian have more information.

Canada

The Canadian Senate voted on 26 February 2026 to amend the bill that would leave political parties subject to weaker privacy rules than virtually any other major organization in Canada to include a sunset clause on the privacy provisions that gives that the government three years to come up with something better. The change is designed to allow the new rules, which as the Senate heard repeatedly from experts and privacy commissioners are not real privacy rules at all, to apply immediately but expire in three years. The Michael Geist blog explains why this will have the effect of killing a privacy challenge that sparked the legislation in the first place.

Ghana 

The Minister for Communications, Digital Technology and Innovations, Samuel Nartey George, has announced that the government is developing a new Data Protection Bill to strengthen Ghana’s legal framework in response to artificial intelligence, automated decision-making and cross-border data flows. He noted that work is underway to reform legislative and institutional frameworks for data protection, with the objective of strengthening enforcement, clarifying international data transfer rules and enhancing citizens’ rights. Read more at gbcghanaonline.

Greece 

A Greek court has sentenced the founder of the Intellexa Consortium and three associates to prison for their role in a sprawling spyware scandal that has dominated Greek headlines since it came to light in 2022. The Misdemeanour Court in Athens sentenced the defendants to more than 126 years in prison, but under Greek law they will only serve eight years, according to local news reports. The Record has more information here.

Spain

A court in Madrid has launched proceedings against Vito Quiles, who is accused of publishing personal information about the head of Red Eléctrica España. This case could reshape the approach to privacy protection for public figures and influence how Spaniards view freedom of expression online. Beatriz Corredor, who heads Red Eléctrica España (REE), filed a lawsuit after posts with her home address and photos of her residence appeared on social media. More information is available at Russpain.

United States

FourthAmendment.com has an article on the recent decision of United States v Heppner, No. 1:25-cr-00503-JSR (S.D. N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026), which held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in what is shared with a cloud AI program, even if it’s in anticipation of litigation. Therefore, no attorney-client privilege attaches to what the client shares with AI.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit overturned a lower court’s dismissal of a challenge to sweeping warrants to search a protester’s devices and digital data and a nonprofit’s social media data. The case, Armendariz v. City of Colorado Springs, arose after a housing protest in 2021, during which Colorado Springs police arrested protesters for obstructing a roadway. After the demonstration, police also obtained warrants to seize and search through the devices and data of Jacqueline Armendariz Unzueta, who they claimed threw a bike at them during the protest. The warrants included a search through all of her photos, videos, emails, text messages, and location data over a two-month period, as well as a time-unlimited search for 26 keywords, including words as broad as “bike,” “assault,” “celebration,” and “right,” that allowed police to comb through years of Armendariz’s private and sensitive data—all supposedly to look for evidence related to the alleged simple assault. Police further obtained a warrant to search the Facebook page of the Chinook Center, the organization that spearheaded the protest, despite the Chinook Center never having been accused of a crime. The district court had dismissed the civil rights lawsuit brought by Armendariz and the Chinook Center, holding that the searches were justified and that, in any case, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has more information on the Court of Appeal’s decision to overturn the district court here.

The U.S. Department of Justice is suing five additional states, including Kentucky, for not providing voter registration data, including sensitive information such as driver’s license and Social Security numbers. Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams, a Republican, said that he would “not voluntarily commit a data breach” of Kentuckians’ private information without a court order. The DOJ is now suing 29 states and the District of Columbia for the information, which it has said it would use to ensure clean voting rolls in the states. The Hoptown Chronicle has more information here.

Research and Resources

Next Week in the Courts

The trial in the case of Baroness Lawrence v Associated Newspapers continues this week before Nicklin J.

Reserved Judgments

Various Claimants v MGN, heard 27-30 January 2026, 3, 5 and 6 February 2026 (Fancourt J)

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).