Meta has launched a legal challenge against Ofcom over the fees and fines regime it is enforcing under the Online Safety Act. This is the first major challenge to the enforcement architecture of the landmark legislation. Meta claims that Ofcom’s methodology for calculating the charges is flawed and should not be based on a company’s global revenue, but instead UK only revenues.
Breaches of the Online Safety Act can be punished by fines of up to 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue (QWR) or £18m – whichever is higher. Meta’s position is that this creates disproportionate exposure for multinational platforms and exceeds Parliament’s intended scope. The Guardian, BBC, Reuters and The Verge are some of the many news outlets to cover the story.
The editor of The Wall Street Journal has warned that powerful figures are increasingly threatening to sue media outlets before they have even published a story. Emma Tucker, whose title is being sued by Donald Trump over its reporting of his relationship with the late child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, said the act of reporting itself was now under threat from the use of lawfare. Tucker told the Harry Evans Investigative Journalism Summit that the tactic of threatening to sue newspapers before they had published a story had become an established PR strategy of the powerful amid greater distrust of the established media. The Guardian and Press Gazette have more information.
Internet and Social Media
Cyberleagle has an article on the Law Commission’s proposal that the law of contempt should have world-wide application, covering any publication of material that created a substantial risk that the course of justice in active legal proceedings in England and Wales. Fault would be established where the defendant knew the proceedings were active or was aware of a risk that they were active. Read more about the cross-border liability proposals here.
Data Privacy and Data Protection
The Information Commissioner’s Office has published new guidance to help public authorities confidently handle Freedom of Information (FOI) requests that involve the use of artificial intelligence (AI). Public authorities are seeing an increase in the volume and complexity of requests generated using AI tools, including requests that misquote legislation or require significant clarification before they can be processed.
Artificial Intelligence
Privacy International has an article analysing the rush by governments to adopt artificial intelligence in public services, asking who controls these systems, how people’s data is protected, and whether public services are becoming private black boxes.
AI-powered “nudify” apps are increasingly being used by students to create deepfake sexual images of classmates, but most schools still do not have clear policies for prevention, reporting, discipline, or victim support. The Centre for Internet and Society has an article addressing AI-generated child sexual abuse material, giving guidance on what schools, lawmakers, platforms, and communities need to understand about how this is actually playing out.
Surveillance
MI5 has issued counter-surveillance tips to British-based targets of Chinese spies following the first espionage conviction linked to Beijing. This follows the conviction of two former Hong Kong Police officers who tracked pro-democracy activists. The Telegraph has more information here.
Newspapers Journalism and Regulation
Anti-SLAPP campaigners continue to push for stronger protections in an article in The Guardian, citing multiple reported cases involving activists, sexual-assault survivors and local campaigners threatened with defamation proceedings.
IPSO
- 01567-25 Williamson v miltonkeynes.co.uk, 1 Accuracy, 12 Discrimination, 2 Privacy, 3 Harassment, Breach – sanction: action as offered by publication
- 04553-25 Moshelian v The National, 1 Accuracy, Breach – sanction: action as offered by publication
- 05817-25 Moshelian v The National, 1 Accuracy, Breach – sanction: publication of correction
- 06081-25 Turtle v The Belfast Telegraph, 1 Accuracy, 2 Privacy, 4 Intrusion into grief or shock, 5 Reporting suicide, Breach – sanction: publication of correction
- 06092-25 Williams-Key v express.co.uk, 1 Accuracy, No breach – after investigation
- 06495-25 Williams-Key v express.co.uk, 1 Accuracy, No breach – after investigation
- 06653-25 Moore v The Daily Telegraph, 1 Accuracy, No breach – after investigation
Statements in Open Court and Apologies
We are not aware of any statements in open court or apologies in the last week.
New Issued Cases
There were no new cases issued on the media and communications list in the last week.
Last Week in the Courts
On Tuesday 5 May 2026, the High Court in Northern Ireland delivered judgment in Sands & Anor v Bond & Ors [2026] NIKB 20. Humphreys J set aside a series of ex parte orders obtained against the operators of the Tattle Life website in litigation against its founder, holding that the claimants and their legal team committed “egregious” and repeated failures of full and frank disclosure over a two-year period [145]. Humphreys J refused to strike out the action as an abuse of process but concluded that key orders, including an order for substituted service, could not stand because the court had been materially misled [128]. The Free Speech Union, ICLG and Belfast Live cover the ruling.
On Wednesday 6 May 2026, Aiden Eardley KC’s reasons for extending interim injunctive relief in Thorne & Anor v Protheroe-Beynon [2026] EWHC 1042 (KB) were published. The court considered whether the “nub” of the Claimants’ complaint is in fact their concern about damage to their reputations, which would mean the court was bound to apply the even more exacting threshold test as established in Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269, see [24]. While Aiden Eardley KC found the statements the defendant published of the claimant were defamatory at common law, he held that the claimants primary concern was simply to make these attacks on them stop. The Claim Form and Particulars of Claim allege harassment only and expressly disavow any reliance on the law of defamation. No damages for injury to reputation (or at all) are sought [34].
Media Law in Other Jurisdictions
Australia
Meta plans to introduce a raft of initiatives, including AI-powered textual and visual analysis technology capable of picking up “contextual clues” left behind by teenagers on their Instagram and Facebook accounts in a bid to comply with Australia’s world-first social media ban for under 16s. Meta says it will use AI to trawl through accounts for posts about birthdays and school grades to shut down underage users. News.com.au has more information here.
Canada
The Michael Geist blog posted a number of articles last week on the Canadian Government’s proposals to ban social media and/or AI chatbots for children. Read the argument against banning both social media and AI chatbots for children here and the explanation as to why banning AI chatbots is worse than banning social media here.
France
The Paris prosecutor’s office confirmed on Thursday 7 May 2026 that it has opened a criminal investigation into the parent company of the social network X; its owner, Musk; and its former chief executive, Linda Yaccarino. This comes two weeks after Musk failed to appear for a summons to a voluntary interview on 20 April. Around 10 executives from the American company had also been summoned. The national cyber prosecutors had been probing numerous alleged abuses in a preliminary investigation since the summer of 2025. Le Monde has more information here.
Italy
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni made a statement in response to the fake sexualised images of her generated by artificial intelligence that are circulating online, warning that such false photos could deceive the public and target people unable to defend themselves. Meloni said in a statement that several fake photos of her had been created with AI and passed off as real by political opponents. She posted one such image appearing to show her sitting on a bed wearing underwear. The original post included outraged comment that the photo was shameful and unworthy of an Italian prime minister. Reuters and The Guardian have more information.
United States
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has filed a lawsuit against Character.AI, claiming that one of the company’s chatbots masqueraded as a psychiatrist in violation of the state’s medical licensing rules. According to the state’s filing, a Character.AI chatbot called Emilie presented itself as a licensed psychiatrist during testing by a state Professional Conduct Investigator, maintaining the pretence even as the investigator sought treatment for depression. When asked if she was licensed to practice medicine in the state, Emilie stated that she was, and also fabricated a serial number for her state medical license. According to the state’s lawsuit, that conduct violates Pennsylvania’s Medical Practice Act. TechCrunch has more information here.
Research and Resources
- Bobade, Data Privacy and Security Challenges in Smart Health Wearable Devices (2026), Sinhgad Institute of Management
- Tozal, Meta’s smart glasses are a privacy risk invisible to Chicagoans (2026), Catholic Theological Union, Chicago
- Purdy and Cook, When AI Tutors Fake Critical Thinking: From Cognitive Harm to Institutional Liability (2026), The Cognitive Privacy Project
Next Week in the Courts
We are not aware of any cases listed in the Media and Communications List this week.
Reserved Judgments
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)
Colette Allen is the host of Newscast on Dr Thomas Bennett and Professor Paul Wragg’s The Media Law Podcast (@MediaLawPodcast).


Leave a Reply