On 30 October 2026, the Divisional Court (Singh LJ and Collins Rice J) handed down judgment dismissing challenges brought by Meta, X and TikTok to information requests issued by Ofcom pursuant to its powers under the Online Safety Act 2023, R (Meta, X and TikTok) v Ofcom [2026] EWHC 2779 (Admin). These were the first judicial review proceedings to test Ofcom’s information powers under the Act.

The proceedings concerned information notices issued by Ofcom to Meta, WhatsApp, X and TikTok pursuant to section 100 of the Online Safety Act, which permits Ofcom to require regulated service-providers to provide Ofcom with “any information that they require for the purpose of exercising, or deciding whether to exercise, any of their online safety functions”.

The claimants’ challenges were made on the following grounds: (i) that the information requests were ultra vires by virtue of circumventing provisions within the Act establishing a regime for the supply to Ofcom and publication of information from certain large, ‘categorised’ service providers; (ii) that the information sought by Ofcom was not “required” within the meaning of section 100(1) of the Act; (iii) that Ofcom had unlawfully failed to consider whether to undertake or unlawfully failed to undertake an impact assessment pursuant to its statutory duty under section 7 of the Communications Act 2003; (iv) TikTok (alone) alleged that the information request issued to it was vitiated by apparent predetermination on the part of the decision-maker; and (v) that the information requests were disproportionate, contrary to the proportionality requirement in section 100(4) of the Act and/or the ECHR. The Court dismissed Grounds 1 to 4 as unarguable and refused permission in respect of them. It granted permission for Ground 5 but rejected it. The Press Summary can be read here. Blackstone Chambers has a summary here.

Mr Justice Nicklin heard the injunction application in PPT v ITN & Guardian News Media KB-2026-003646 on 27-28 October 2026. During a two-day trial, the High Court was told by lawyers for the media organisations that the allegations they want to report involve the man’s alleged “abuse of power and status” to contact young women and try to engage in “inappropriate and exploitative sexual activities”. Nicklin J has indicated that the judgment will be handed down this week.

The Applicant is seeking to rely on mental health grounds to maintain his anonymity. He denies the allegations of wrongdoing and maintains that publication would have a potentially fatal impact as he has attempted suicide twice as a result of these matters, been hospitalised for months and been the subject of involuntary detention. ITN and GNM submitted that there is no precedent which shows there is a duty to prevent a risk of death in a case relating to the publication of statements which are said to trigger suicidal impulses. The Press Gazette, Independent and Guardian cover the hearing.

Far-right activist Tommy Robinson, whose government name is Stephen Lennon, has been convicted of harassing two Daily Mail journalists and causing them to fear violence. Lennon was labelled a “bully” by prosecutors after freelance reporter Andrew Young and Daily Mail editor Jacob Dirnhuber felt forced to either leave their homes or employ extra security for fear of a “vigilante” attack. Jurors at Southwark Crown Court took 11 hours and 25 minutes to find Robinson guilty by a majority of ten jurors to two of both charges of harassment causing fear of violence. The Press Gazette, Guardian, BBC, and Sky News have more information.

Internet and Social Media

The Competition and Markets Authority has opened a formal investigation into Meta’s proposed commercial terms for businesses and publishers using is platforms. The revised terms would allow Meta to scrape content from publisher’s websites, reuse that material to develop and provide its own products and do so without publishers having a meaningful choice over whether or how their material is used.

Surveillance

The Home Office has published policy and data protection documents indicating that UK Immigration Enforcement will be able to deploy live facial recognition beyond conventional border settings. The policy also permits immigration enforcement to supply watchlists for police facial recognition deployments, or to process police-supplied data using its own systems. Computer Weekly has more information here.

The Guardian reports that the six-month trial of live facial recognition technology in London’s railway stations that cost more than £320,000 and almost 100 hours of police officers’ time led to one false match against a watchlist of suspects and no arrests. Read the full story here.

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 was one defamation (libel and slander) claim filed on the media and communication list last week.

Last Week in the Courts

The trial in the case of Amersi v BBC KB-2022-003244 was heard by Tipples J between Monday 26 October to Friday 30 October 2026. Mohamed Amersi is suing the corporation over allegations made in a Panorama documentary and an online article published in October 2021, both of which alleged he was involved in deals made by a company he advised that he knew were corrupt or involved corrupt payments. Amersi denies the allegations and is suing the BBC for libel, seeking damages and an injunction preventing it from repeating the allegations. The BBC is defending the claim, arguing that Amersi has not shown the claims caused serious harm to his reputation and that the allegations are true. The Press Gazette has more information here.  The trial continues.

On 27 October 2026, Tribunal Judge Matthew Donmall handed down judgment in K v The Director of Border Revenue (RESTORATION – refusal decision under appeal refers to a spent conviction – Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 – Article 8 ECHR – anonymity application) [2026] UKFTT 1490 (TC) .  The Appellant applied for anonymity in his appeal against the Respondent’s refusal to restore items seized at East Midlands airport on 11 December 2023 after the Appellant arrived into the UK from Spain and walked through the ‘Nothing to Declare’ channel.  In the Refusal, the Respondent relied on a previous conviction in Germany in 2014 relating to customs offences resulting in a four-year custodial sentence. The Appellant contends that his name must be anonymised for the purposes of the hearing of his appeal and any subsequent public decision, to protect his statutory rights under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA) and/or Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Donmall J did not consider that the Appellant had a substantive right directly under the ROA to anonymity [40]. He held that there is no explicit right articulated in the ROA to anonymity in court proceedings where the fact of a spent conviction might arise [41] and such a right cannot be implied into the general statement at the outset of s.4(1) ROA [42]. However, Donmall J did find that the Appellant had a case under Article 8 ECHR. He held that in the particular circumstances of this case, without anonymity, the Appellant’s article 8 rights would be interfered with, and such interference would not be necessary and proportionate for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary and/or for the protection of the article 10 rights of others. Conversely the interference with article 10 that anonymity would involve is justified as necessary and proportionate for the protection of the Appellant’s Article 8 rights [64].

As mentioned above, the trial in the case of PPT v ITN & anor KB-2026-003646 took place on Tuesday 27 October and Wednesday 28 October 2026. Nicklin J said he hoped to give a decision this week.

On Thursday 29 October 2026 there was the trial of a preliminary issue in the libel case of Docherty v Eccles (KB-2025-004522) before Hill J.  Judgment was reserved

On the same day Mrs Justice Hill DBE handed down judgment on meaning in Chandale v Sovereign Network Group & Ors [2026] EWHC 2775 (KB). She determined that the natural and ordinary meaning of the publication complained of was that (i) the Claimant had harassed her neighbours; (ii) SNG, together with partner agencies, had taken legal action against her for that conduct; (iii) following a full trial, the court had found that she had harassed her neighbours; and (iv) the court considered that her conduct was sufficiently serious that it should impose a restraining order on her. This was a Chase level (1) meaning, to the effect that the Claimant had in fact harassed her neighbours. The Publication was a publication of fact and was defamatory at common law [29].

On Friday 30 October 2026 there was a hearing in the case of Ahmed & orsv Akbar (KB-2024-000835)

As mentioned above, on the same day the Divisional Court (Singh LJ and Collins Rice J) handed down judgment in R (Meta, X and TikTok) v Ofcom [2026] EWHC 2779 (Admin).

Media Law in Other Jurisdictions

Australia

The Federal Court of Australia has dismissed the defamation proceedings in Gussen v Momentum Media Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 1618. The claim related to two substantially identical articles published in Lawyers Weekly and HR Leader that reported on Gussen’s departure from Swinburne University and the subsequent employment proceedings. The Court found that Gussen failed to establish serious harm. The defendants also successfully relied on the public document defence under section 28 of the Victorian Defamation Act.

The ABC has confirmed that it is reviewing its editorial guidance on the use of anonymous sources following an internal review of reporting by former Four Corners journalist Mahmood Fazal. Several of Fazal’s stories had been withdrawn after an internal review found that ABC verification policies concerning anonymous interviewees had not been followed to the required editorial standard.

Canada

The Michael Geist blog has a comparison piece analysing the UK and Canada’s different approaches to age verification following both government’s announcement that social media will be banned for under-16s.

Russia

The Russian government has expanded a pilot program that tracks foreign migrants in Moscow across the entire country. All foreign nationals entering Russia will have to install the mobile app “Amina” on their phones to track their location. The Kremlin made the app mandatory after the Crocus City Hall terrorist attack in 2024. Interfax has more information here.

Norway

Norwegian media companies have won an initial court victory against Meta over its planned new AI scraping terms. The Oslo District Court ruled in favour of the media companies, saying the legality of the new terms must be reviewed by a court before they can come into effect. The Press Gazette has more information here.

United Arab Emirates

The UAE has announced a new Child Digital Safety Law which will come into force on 1 January 2027 and require digital platforms and internet service providers to strengthen age assurance, privacy, content safeguards and governance for children. The Federal Decree Law No. 26 of 2025 on Child Digital Safety forms part of the UAE’s broader policy agenda to strengthen child protection and responsible digital governance. The CDS Law establishes a dedicated legal framework for children’s online safety and places obligations on digital platforms, internet service providers and, to a more limited extent, parents and guardians. The IAPP has more information here.

United States

Meta has agreed to pay $459 million in settlement with 47 states to settle privacy claims revolving around allegations that it had provided user data on tens of millions of users in 2018 to British firm Cambridge Analytica, which was used to build profiles on American voters. The same case has also resulted in another $25 billion fine against Meta, levied by a state judge in New Mexico. Jezebel has more information here.

Research and Resources

Next Week in the Courts 

The trial in the case of Amersi v BBC will continue  on 2 November 2026 before Tipples J.

Reserved Judgments

Docherty v Eccles, heard 29 October 2026 (Hill J)

PPT v ITN & anor, heard 27-28 October 2026 (Nicklin J)

This Round Up was compiled by Colette Allen who is a pupil barrister at 4 King’s Bench Walk and the host of ‘Newscast’ on Dr Thomas Bennett and Professor Paul Wragg’s The Media Law Podcast (@MediaLawPodcast).