The punk-rap duo Bob Vylan has filed defamation proceedings against the BBC in the High Court in Ireland, following its coverage of their 2025 Glastonbury performance, which the broadcaster described as containing “anti-Semitic sentiments.”

The case stems from controversy over chants the band led calling for “death to the IDF [Israel Defence Force],” which the BBC briefly broadcast live before removing and apologising for. The band denies any anti-Semitic intent, saying their criticism was directed at a military institution. The Telegraph, Novara Media, Rolling Stone, covered the story.

Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper has warned that artificial intelligence poses risks comparable to the advent of nuclear weapons, according to The Guardian. In an essay due for publication by Chatham House think tank, she will argue that AI is likely to become the defining foreign policy challenge of the next two years and will call for greater global cooperation, including between the US and China, to manage its risks. The Independent also covered the development.

Internet and Social Media

The National Crime Agency and Internet Watch Foundation have issued new guidance urging parents to limit the public sharing of children’s photos online amid growing concerns over AI-generated child sexual abuse material. The guidance recommends using private social media settings, reviewing older images and photo-sharing permissions, and discussing online consent with children, warning that advances in AI enable criminals to manipulate publicly available images into explicit content without grooming victims directly. The Guardian reported on the guidance.

Internet Matters has an article arguing that for age restrictions on social media to be effective, the Government’s new proposals must apply to the correct services, be supported by robust age assurance mechanisms and be subject to rigorous evaluation of their effectiveness.

Data Privacy and Data Protection

A County Court judge has dismissed TV historian Laurence Westgaph’s data protection claim against Mill Media, in the first court test of the journalism exemption applied to a Subject Access Request, according to the Press Gazette. Westgaph sued after Mill Media’s publication, The Post reported on National Museums Liverpool’s decision to hire him despite misconduct allegations, based on interviews with multiple sources including former partners. Mill Media refused his SAR under the public-interest journalism exemption. The judge rejected Westgaph’s claim that he was not seeking sources’ identities, while acknowledging that Mill Media breached UK GDPR by responding 22 days late to a SAR, albeit in what was described as a “trivial” breach. The court made no order as to costs.

The ICO published guidance aimed at small business owners, explaining how they can share information lawfully to help tackle crime, including how employers can share information with their staff and the requirements for lawfully deploying  facial recognition software.

Surveillance

Sainsbury’s is expanding facial recognition across its stores following a trial, rolling it out to over 200 locations. The system flags shoppers who have been added to the watchlist, which Sainsbury’s says has helped deter repeat theft. However, the rollout has drawn criticism after a widely reported case of mistaken identity and concerns about privacy. The Telegraph, The Sun and The Grocer covered the development.

Newspaper Journalism and Regulation

European media group, Axel Springer, has completed its £575m acquisition of Telegraph Media Group, ending three years of uncertainty over its ownership, after receiving all required regulatory approvals. The company said it plans to accelerate The Telegraph’s digital transformation and international expansion, with a stated goal of positioning it as a leading centre-right media outlet in the English-speaking world. Press Gazette, The Guardian, Reuters and The Telegraph reported on the takeover.

Lloyds Banking Group has been accused of “debanking” the left-wing media outlet The Canary, which says the bank has withheld funds and left it in severe financial difficulty with no explanation. The Canary claims it has been unable to access a substantial portion of its money, disrupting its operations, including a recently launched print edition. Lloyds has declined to comment on individual customer accounts, while the outlet and its supporters have framed the dispute as part of wider concerns about politically motivated account closures. The Press Gazette, Novara Media, City AM, The National and Middle East Eye have more information.

Intellectual Property and Copyright

The Daily Mail is facing a US class action lawsuit brought by photographer Matthew Moore, who alleges the paper systematically copies photos from ordinary people’s social media accounts without permission or payment, then disguises the practice by crediting only the social media platform, rather than the true copyright holder. The action cites an image of actress Annie Sertich, shot by Moore and used in a Daily Mail article, after being allegedly copied from her Instagram. Moore claims lawyers found 107 similarly sourced photos in articles published over just nine days in June, potentially exposing the Mail to over $10 million a year in damages. The Press Gazette, Bloomberg Law News and International Business Times has more information.

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 2 claims filed in the Media and Communications list last week, one defamation and one misuse of private information.

Last week in the courts

On Tuesday 30 June 2026, there was a trial of preliminary issues before Griffiths J in the case of Ameyaw v Anthony KB-2026-000056.

On Wednesday 1 July 2026, the Court of Appeal (Warby LJ, Coulson LJ, Lewison LJ) handed down judgement in the appeal of Vince v Tice [2026] EWCA Civ 844. Green energy industrialist and environmental campaigner, Dale Vince brought a libel claim against Reform UK MP, Richard Tice, over a tweet in which Tice reposted an interview of Vince with a caption suggesting that Vince supported the terrorist organisation, Hamas. At first instance, following a trial of preliminary issues, Pepperall J found that the statement complained of was an opinion. Vince appealed the judgement on the grounds that (i) the trial judge was wrong to determine Tice’s comments were a statement of opinion and (ii) even if the statement was an opinion, it expressed discrete allegations of fact which should have been incorporated into the meaning.  Warby J delivered the leading judgement, dismissing the appeal on both grounds. In respect of the first ground, the Court found that Pepperall J had correctly applied the law by determining the meaning of the tweet in its context as a quote tweet and rejected Vince’s argument that the statement needed to “be ‘obviously’ one of opinion” [48-49]. In relation to the second ground, the Court held that Vince was seeking to advance a new argument that in quote retweeting a defamatory article Tice was repeating the defamatory allegations of fact. As this argument had not been pursued before the High Court, the Court of Appeal held it would be unjust to allow it to be raised on appeal. The Court of Appeal press summary is available here. 5RB also has a summary and the case was covered by The Telegraph, Solicitors Journal, Lawyer Monthly and Guido Fawkes.

On the same day, there was a hearing in the case of Pattinson v Winsor.

On Friday 3 July 2026, there was a hearing before Murray J in the case of Al Sadik v Sadik 

Media Law in Other Jurisdictions

Australia

On 1 July 2026, the Supreme Court of New South Wales granted an application for interlocutory injunction in the breach of confidence case of AB v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2026] NSWSC 767. Three professional athletes (AB, CD and EF) sought interlocutory relief to restrain ABC journalist Marnie Vinall and AB’s ex-partner GH from using or publishing years of private messages from their group chat, which GH had covertly accessed and photographed from AB’s old phone. The court found there was a serious question to be tried, rejecting the defendants’ argument that the claim should have been properly pleaded in defamation [109-110]. The court also held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiffs, given their strong case for final relief, manner in which the messages were obtained, absence of real prejudice to the defendants in granting the injunction and lack of urgent need to publish the messages. The defendants were ordered to refrain from using or disclosing the information contained in the group chat.

On 2 July 2026, the District Court of South Australia ruled that two business records obtained by subpoena were admissible as evidence in the defamation and injurious falsehood case of Antonio Trasente DJ Developments Pty Limited v Kirsty Mccreight (No 2) [2026] SADC 75. The plaintiff, a builder, alleged that the defendant falsely told the building company’s insurer that the company was in financial difficulty, leading to the suspension of its warranty insurance. The Court held both documents admissible, as none of the three statutory safeguards in s53(2) of the Evidence Act 1929 were triggered.

Canada

On 30 June 2026, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the parties motion for the determination of a question of law by way of a special case under r. 22 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in the case of Aukema v. Peters, 2026 ONCA 484. The underlying defamation case arose from allegedly false statements made by the defendants to the police, accusing the plaintiff of criminal conduct. The parties sought clarification on whether reports to law enforcement alleging criminal activity are protected by absolute privilege. The court dismissed the motion, holding that none of the criteria for hearing a special case were satisfied and that, even if the threshold had been met, determining the question would not save time or costs.

China

DLA Piper’s Privacy Matters blog has a blog post on the recent publication of ‘data export negative lists’ by several free trade zones in China. These lists offer guidelines on the meaning of “important data” under Chinese law, which refers to data whose misuse or disclosure could affect national security, economic operations, social stability, or public interests. These lists provide companies with a far more practical framework for assessing whether particular data falls within the scope of “important data.”

United States

Former Harvard Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz, lost a bid before the US Supreme Court to revive his defamation lawsuit against CNN over its coverage of comments he made during Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial. Lower courts had already dismissed the case, finding he failed to meet the “actual malice” standard required under US defamation law for public figures. The justices left those rulings intact, though Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said they would have heard the case and reiterated calls to reconsider the landmark New York Times v Sullivan precedent. Bloomberg, The Guardian, NBC, PBS, LA Times and Reuters have more information.

Following the march by neo-fascist group, Patriot Front, through Washington DC on 4 July, US officials defended their decision not to intervene, stating that the demonstration was protected by the First Amendment as peaceful political expression. Hundreds of masked members carrying banners and chanting nationalist slogans prompted counter-protests. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum denounced the white supremacist group’s ideology but emphasised that freedom of speech applies regardless of the views expressed. Reuters, The Guardian, New York Times, The Independent, NBC and Al Jazeera have more information.

Research and Resources

 Next Week in the Courts 

On Tuesday 7 July 2026 there will be a hearing in the libel case of Makamba v Mlawa KB-2024-001062

On the same day there will be a hearing in the libel case of Beckett v Graham & anr KB-2024-004120.

On Wednesday and Thursday 8 and 9 July 2026 there will be a hearing in the case of Garrett v Schestowitz KB-2024-001270.

Reserved Judgments

Ameyaw v Anthony, heard 30 June 2026 (Griffiths J)

Vince v Associated Newspapers, heard 24 June 2026 (Vos MR, Warby and Whipple LJJ).

Kaur v Fox, heard 8 June 2026 (Linden J)

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

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

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