The company which operates the World Check database, Refinitiv, settled the data protection claim brought by two children ( Lazarevic and another v Refinitiv Ltd KB-2024-003170) on the first day of what was to be a five day trial.  Refinitiv agreed to remove the profiles .

The claimants, who were represented by their mothers as litigation friends, alleged that their inclusion on World-Check due to the status of their grandparents as “Politically Exposed Persons” breached their data rights under Articles 5, 14, 15, 22 and 25 of the UK GDPR. The settlement required the approval of the court as it involved minors. Matrix Chambers has a summary. The case was also covered in the Financial Times.

The Director of the FBI, Kash Patel, has filed a $250m defamation claim against The Atlantic, alleging it published false and damaging claims. The article accused Patel of excessive drinking, unexplained absences, and behaviour which gave rise to a national security and public safety risk. Patel states that he was given insufficient opportunity to respond to the claim, however The Atlantic maintains that its report relied on interviews with more than two dozen sources and that it gave parties two hours to respond. The BBC, The Hill, The Guardian, CNN, NYT and Reuters have more information.

Internet and Social Media

Mischon de Reya has a blog post examining what the recent findings of liability against Big Tech companies in the US for designing addictive platforms that harm children mean for similar claims in England and Wales. It argues that procedural and funding barriers continue to make similar challenges difficult, noting that the Law Commission is considering whether a consumer class actions regime should be introduced.

Data privacy and data protection

On 21 April 2026, the Court of Appeal (Sharp P. Lewison and Warby, LJJ) handed down judgement in the case of RTM v Bonne Terre Ltd & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 488. The claimant sued an online betting company over alleged unlawful processing of his data through placing cookies and targeted advertising, during a period when he was a gambling addict, which he argued caused him financial loss and distress. At first instance, Collins Rice J held that the claimant had not given valid consent and therefore the company’s actions were unlawful. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on all five grounds, confirming that “consent” under the UK GDPR and PECR is an objective test based on whether a user gave a clear, informed and unambiguous affirmative indication, rather than on their subjective mental state. Mischon de Reya, Wiggin and the UK Human Rights Blog have more information.

Surveillance

On 21 April 2026, the High Court handed down judgement in favour of the defendant in the judicial review of R (Carlo and Thompson) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2026] EWHC 915 (Admin). The claimants challenged the Metropolitan Police’s use of live facial recognition, arguing that the infringements to their privacy, free expression and freedom of assembly were unlawful, as the Met’s use of the technology was not sufficiently foreseeable, nor subject to adequate safeguards against arbitrary decision‑making. Holgate LJ and Farbey J dismissed the claim, concluding that the Met’s policy did not authorise arbitrary decision-making, is sufficiently clear and foreseeable, and provides adequate safeguards against abuse. Shaun Thompson will seek permission to appeal the judgement. The High Court published a summary of its decision. The Metropolitan Police’s statement is available here. The Claimants’ responses are available here. The BBC, The Independent, Sky News, GB News, covered the ruling.

Newspaper Journalism and regulation

The Administrative Court has lifted an anonymity and reporting restrictions order in unexplained wealth order proceedings brought by the National Crime Agency, after media organisations successfully argued that the principle of open justice should prevail over privacy claims. The court held that the Supreme Court decision in ZXC v Bloomberg LP does not create a default expectation of privacy in investigations under POCA, confirming instead that open justice remains the starting point and that restrictions must be specifically justified as necessary. Fordham J granted permission to appeal and the interim order will remain in place pending appeal. Doughty Street Chambers has a summary of the judgement, which is available to read in full here.

IPSO

Statements in open court and apologies

On Thursday 23 April 2026 there was a statement in open Court in the case of Jarman v Countess Spencer KB-2024-003380.  There were reports of the statement in Hello! magazine and on GB News.

New Issued cases

There was one Part 8 claim filed on the Media and Communication list last week.

Last week in the courts

On 20 April 2026, there was a consequentials hearing in the defamation case of Ali v Hussain KB-2024-000959 before Guy Vassall-Adams KC.

Between 20 and 24 April 2026, Griffiths J heard the libel trial in Rodoy v Optical Express KB-2023-002437.

As mentioned above, on 21 April 2026, the Court of Appeal overturned a ruling of the High Court in the data protection case of RTM v Bonne Terre Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 488.

On 22 April 2026, the High Court dismissed the interim injunction in the case of Smith & Anor v Copestake [2026] EWHC 924 (KB). The defendant was employed by the second claimant, a venture capital company, until he was dismissed for gross misconduct. The claim is brought for harassment and libel in relation to the defendant airing his grievances against the claimants online and in a WhatsApp group. As the primary thrust of the claim was reputational harm, the question before the judge was whether it was more likely than not that the applicant will establish that publication should not be allowed, which the court answered in the negative.

On 23 April 2026, the High Court granted remedies in the case of Rzucek v Vinnicombe [2026] EWHC 946 (KB). Following the widely publicised 2018 murders of Shanann Watts and her children, her brother sued YouTuber Alan Vinnicombe for harassment and defamation over videos promoting conspiracy theories and allegations about the family. The defendant’s defence and counter claim had been struck out in an earlier decision of the court and judgment was entered for the claimant. In determining the remedies, Dan Squires KC (sitting as Deputy High Court Judge) proceeded on the basis of the claimant’s particulars of claim and awarded him an injunction and £40,000 in general and aggravated damages. However, the court did not grant any remedies in relation to the harassment claim, finding that the claimant was outside the jurisdiction at all material times [46].

On 24 April 2026, the High Court handed down judgment on preliminary meaning in the defamation case of Pearson v Essex Police & anr [2026] EWHC 961 (KB). The claimant, a Telegraph journalist, was investigated by Essex Police over a ‘non-crime hate incident’ linked to a social media post. She later described a visit from police officers to her home in a published column. Following this, Essex Police published three versions of a press statement on its website, which form the basis of the claimant’s claim against the Chief Constable. The claimant also takes action against the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for Essex, Roger Hirst, in relation comments made during a LBC radio interview and in article published on Conservative Home.

Chamberlain J held that the statements made by Essex Police in their first two press statements conveyed the meaning that “there were grounds to investigate a woman at an address in Essex for an alleged offence of inciting racial hatred, linked to a post on social media” [35]. This was found to be a Chase Level 3 meaning. The third press statement was found not to be defamatory as the statement that “no further action” was to be taken neutralised the earlier imputation of there being grounds to investigate the woman. The second alleged meaning that the claimant suggested was that she had provided a false account of her interaction with the police, but whether this was a defamatory imputation would be an issue for trial, as it depends on findings of fact [41, 44]. The question of whether the statements made by Essex Police would be understood to refer to the claimant remains to be determined at trial. Both Roger Hirst’s comments in his LBC interview and Conservative Home article were found to be defamatory at Chase Level 3. The former bore the meaning that there were reasonable grounds to investigate the claimant for the offence of inciting racial hatred [57], whilst the latter carried the imputation that there were grounds to investigate whether the claimant had committed a hate speech offence. The Telegraph, BBC, Press Gazette and Southend Echo covered the ruling.

Media law in other jurisdictions

Australia

On 23 April 2026, the Federal Court of Australia awarded costs against the claimant on an indemnity basis in the defamation case of Al Muderis v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (Costs) [2026] FCA 491. Having dismissed the claimant’s claim, the judge ruled that costs should be paid as a lump sum on an indemnity basis, as the court made adverse credit findings against the claimant and his witnesses; the claimant made significant credit attacks against the defendant’s witnesses without any basis and made allegations without foundation or knowing them to be false [29-36].

Canada

Associate professor at the University of Ottawa, Darryl Leroux has filed a Notice of Appeal after he was found to have defamed academic, Michelle Coupal by accusing her of fraudulently claiming Indigenous identity to become an expert in reconciliation. Coupal was awarded $70,000 in damages, however the case has sparked debate over how courts handle complex issues of Indigenous identity and the implications for academic freedom to research Indigenous identity theft. CBC and APTN News have more information.

Czech Republic

Media organisations including the European Federation of Journalists have warned that a proposed Czech government bill to replace licence-fee funding for public broadcasters Czech Television and Czech Radio with reduced state budget financing could undermine their financial and editorial independence, potentially breaching Article 5 of the European Media Freedom Act, and have urged the European Commission to scrutinise the reforms.

United States

A judge dismissed singer, Smokey Robinson’s $500m defamation claim against four former housekeepers who accused him of sexual assault, ruling there was not enough evidence they acted with “actual malice.” The women had filed a separate $50m lawsuit alleging sexual battery false imprisonment, negligence and gender violence, which Robinson denies. While the defamation portion of his countersuit was thrown out, his other claims for emotional distress and financial elder abuse can still proceed. The BBC, Bloomberg Law and NBC Los Angeles covered the ruling.

A judge dismissed far-right activist, Laura Loomer’s $150m defamation lawsuit against comedian Bill Maher, ruling that his remark on Real Time with Bill Maher, suggesting she had a sexual relationship with Donald Trump, was clearly a joke that no reasonable viewer would take as factual. Loomer had claimed that the comments caused her reputational damage, financial loss and cost her a job at the White House, but the judge rejected the claim, highlighted her already controversial public profile and the comedic context. Loomer intends to appeal. The Independent, NBC News, Politico and CNN covered the judgement.

Research and Resources

Next week in the courts

The libel trial in Rodoy v Optical Express KB-2023-002437 will continue before Griffiths J on 27 to 29 April 2026.

On Wednesday 29 April 2026 there will be an application in the case of Secake & ors v SSCL KB-2025-003373 .

On Thursday 30 April 2026 there will be hearings of applications in the cases of BPA v NXT KB-2025-003669 and Picker v TEW KB-2023-003201.

On Friday 1 May 2026 there will be a return  date hearing in the case of Thorne v Protheroe-Beynon KB-2026-001090.

Reserved judgements

Baroness Lawrence & ors v ANL, heard 19 January – 31 March 2026 (Nicklin J)

Clutterbuck v The Chief Constable of West Mercia Police, heard 16-18 March 2026 (Dan Squires KC)

Graham and another v Beckett, heard 17 March 2026 (Heather Williams J)

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