The last term of the legal year, the Trinity Term, will begin on Tuesday 2 June 2026 and end on Friday 31 July 2026.

The government consultation into children’s wellbeing online ended on 26 May 2026 after receiving over 81,000 responses. The RPC blog states that those in the tech industry are reported to believe that the government’s attention is shifting away from an outright ban on social media for children under 16 and towards measures to address addictive features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, location sharing and disappearing messages. This move will likely be attributed to safety concerns and difficulties with the enforcement of an outright ban. The Guardian reports that the UK’s online safety minister says he has spent a week in Australia learning the “practical lessons” of the country’s under-16s social media ban amid concern that many teenagers are bypassing the law.

Internet and Social Media

DLA Piper has an article on Quantum Computing and the Future of Cyber Security. Quantum computing has the potential to undermine and ultimately render many traditional encryption techniques ineffective by introducing fundamentally different computational methods and enabling the simultaneous processing of multiple possibilities. The result is a significant systemic risk across critical infrastructures, including financial systems, communications networks, and digital identity frameworks.

Data Privacy and Data Protection

Privacy International has an article analysing how new EU access to documents rules can reduce transparency and shield Big Tech. The new EU Commission rules extend a formal presumption of confidentiality to proceedings under the Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act without citing any supporting court authority. Civil-society groups warn that these changes weaken public oversight at a time when lobbying by large technology companies is intensifying.

Surveillance

London’s Metropolitan Police asked tech companies to give officers access to private communications data over 700,000 times in 2025 alone, according to figures obtained by The Register under the Freedom of Information Act. These statistics expose the monitoring of everyday platforms like takeaway delivery services, and also show a massive surge in the force’s surveillance of the users of low cost MVNO LycaMobile. Additionally, the FoI exposed the acquisition of data from encrypted messaging services designed to offer privacy.

IAPP has an article analysing how the English Football League’s fine against Southampton FC is a cautionary take about privacy, surveillance and competitive misconduct in the AI age. Southampton FC was fined for breaches of the EFL Regulations pertaining to observing another club’s training sessions three days before any scheduled match.

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 no new cases issued in the Media and Communications List in the last week.

Last Week in the Courts

Two weeks ago, on 22 May 2026, Griffiths J handed down judgment in Rodoy v Optical Express Ltd [2026] EWHC 1219. The claimant operated a website and various social media groups/accounts called ‘Optical Express Ruined My Life’ (‘OERML’), which warned readers of the dangers of laser eye surgery, despite never having been a customer of Optical Express. Optical Express used a stock paragraph to send out in response to complainants who had mentioned Ms Rodoy or OERML in their complaint, which called Ms Rodoy a “vexatious individual, who is a self-confessed and known fraudster… The individual was not treated by, and has never been a patient of, Optical Express. [The/This] person unfortunately does troll Optical Express and many of our team online. In the past, this trolling has been to such an extent that we have had to involve the police in the interest of employee safety.” Ms Rodoy brought a defamation claim against Optical Express over the publication of these words in emails to four of its customers. Griffiths J held that there was serious harm to Ms Rodoy’s reputation but Optical Express’ truth defences prevailed. Brett Wilson and RPC provide more detailed summaries of the judgment.

On Monday 25 May 2026, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Shorts International Ltd v Google LLC [2026] EWCA Civ 668. The Chancellor of the High Court upheld the earlier ruling and dismissed Shorts International Ltd’s (SIL’s) appeal, confirming that Google’s use of ‘Shorts’ did not infringe SIL’s registered trademarks and that one of its registrations was invalid. SIL, a producer and distributor of short films aired on its ‘ShortsTV’ channel, contended that Google’s deployment of ‘Shorts’ for its YouTube Shorts service infringed its five registered trademarks under section 10(2) and 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994) and amounted to passing off. The judge determined that four of SIL’s marks remained valid owing to modest figurative elements that imparted distinctiveness, whereas the ‘SHORTSTV’ word mark lacked distinctiveness and was invalid for the majority of the goods and services covered.

Media Law in Other Jurisdictions

Australia

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has threatened to sue social media ​giants for allegedly flouting a ban on under-16s, as its internet regulator disclosed it is investigating some of ‌the biggest platforms for suspected non-compliance with the world-first measure. Communications Minister Anika Wells said the government was gathering evidence “so that the eSafety ​Commissioner can go to the Federal Court and win”. Reuters has more information here.

Canada

The Michael Geist blog covers the ongoing hearings into Bill C-22, which this week included appearances from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Apple, Google, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and a series of law enforcement associations. The article found that the fundamental takeaway from the week could be summarized in a single 22-second clip from Apple, which makes clear that the bill poses real risks, and the government thus far seems uninterested in addressing them. The Bill C-22 hearing may have been a mess, but the message was clear.

China and Hong Kong

China and Hong Kong are intensifying AI governance through China’s new lifecycle-wide ethics guidelines and Hong Kong’s compliance checks promoting the safe deployment of AI. IAPP has more information here.

Netherlands

The Dutch government has blocked American IT giant Kyndryl from acquiring Solvinity, a Dutch cloud provider that hosts the Netherlands’ online identity platform because the deal poses a possible risk to the public interest. Solvinity hosts a platform called DigiD, a service managed by the Dutch government that allows the country’s residents to verify their identity when accessing public services. The deal triggered fears that DigiD data would fall under foreign control and could be demanded by US authorities. TechCrunch has more information here.

United States

The Supreme Court is currently weighing a case that could reshape how law enforcement works with technology firms to identify potential suspects. The court has been asked to rule on whether or not so-called geofence warrants are legal under the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants. The case is the first involving digital privacy to be considered by the Supreme Court since 2018 and could have major implications for other types of police tools that involve large amounts of data. Petitioner Okello Chatrie was charged with robbery after law enforcement obtained a geofence warrant directed at Google. Under such warrants, tech companies are asked to give law enforcement the location history of people in a certain area so they can identify unknown suspects, and Google has said it has been served with geofence warrants covering exceptionally large areas across multiple days. The Record has more information here.

Illinois, Connecticut and New York are moving to finalise some of the most impactful AI and privacy provisions proposed during the 2026 legislative session. IAPP has more information here.

Research and Resources

Next Week in the Courts 

We are not presently aware of any cases listed in the Media and Communications List for the first week of term.

Reserved Judgments

Bridgen v Hancock, heard 20 May 2026 (King, Warby and Whipple LJJ)

Vince v Tice, heard 14 May 2026 (Lewison, Coulson and Warby LJJ)

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