Welcome to the Media Law Update, where we cover the key developments and insights in the ever-evolving landscape of English media law. In this edition we cover defamation, privacy, data protection, copyright, online safety, commercial disputes and the latest news (including anti SLAPP measures and the new legislation on freedom of speech).

This round-up outlines the latest court decisions, legislative changes, and industry trends which have made an impact in 2025.

Defamation

Privacy

Copyright

Data Protection

Online Safety

Commercial Disputes

In the news

Hot topics

Noel Clarke v Guardian News and Media Ltd [2025] EWHC 2193 (KB)

In Noel Clarke v Guardian, the High Court dismissed Noel Clarke’s libel claim against the newspaper in its entirety, finding that the publication was both true and published in the public interest. The court additionally held that Clarke was only able to establish the threshold requirement of serious harm to his reputation for one of the 7 articles and one podcast upon which the claim focused. As far as the truth defence was concerned, extensive lay evidence from 29 witnesses over 14 years supported findings of serial sexual harassment, bullying, unwanted sexual contact, and covert filming by Clarke. The court rejected Clarke’s claims that witnesses had conspired against him and found that he was not a credible witness. On public interest, the court found that contemporaneous documentation, right-to-reply opportunities and corroboration made the editor’s belief in the truth of the publications “undoubtedly reasonable,” underscoring the continuing relevance of Reynolds factors. The judgment is significant in providing an up-to-date roadmap for defending “general imputation” cases and managing large cohorts of non-party witnesses, which is explored further in this year’s ‘Hot Topic’. Wiggin represented Guardian News and Media in these proceedings.

Read the full judgment here.

Blake & Ors v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321

In October the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Blake v Fox. This concerned an appeal of the High Court’s 2024 judgment in a libel case arising from 2020 tweets made by Laurence Fox, a British actor and political activist, and the claimants. The claimants called Fox a racist on Twitter, and he responded calling them paedophiles. The claimants sued Fox for libel for the paedophile allegation, and Fox counterclaimed for the  ‘racist’ tweets. The High Court ordered Fox to pay the claimants damages of £90,000 each. The Court of Appeal reduced that payment by half, on the basis that Fox’s prompt deletion and repudiation mitigated harm; mainstream reporting should have been treated as mitigating rather than aggravating harm; and a public “solidarity” statement by third parties did not itself show additional harm.  The Court of Appeal also remitted Fox’s counterclaims for retrial finding legal error in the High Court’s analysis of the threshold issue of serious harm to Fox’s reputation analysis. Notably, it held that the first instance decision erred in law by conflating general reputational harm with career impact, relying in error on the effect of third-party publications.

Read the full judgment here.

Taylor v Pathe Productions Limited and others [2024] EWHC 1475 (KB) (preliminary finding on meaning)   

In October parties settled the libel claim brought by Richard Taylor, former director of corporate affairs at the University of Leicester, against Pathé Productions, Baby Cow Productions and actor Steve Coogan over Taylor’s portrayal in the film “The Lost King”. The film tells the true story behind the discovery of the remains of Richard III in a car park in Leicester, England. The film portrayed Taylor – using his real name – as the university’s key coordinator on the project. A 2024 preliminary ruling had found that the film depicted Taylor as knowingly misrepresenting facts about the Richard III project and treating Philippa Langley (the heroine of the film) in a smug, dismissive, and patronising manner. The defendants agreed to pay damages and costs, and committed to amending the film by adding a card at the beginning so as to withdraw those allegations from publication. As part of the settlement, Taylor also made a unilateral statement in open court. The case attracted considerable attention for being a rare libel case brought in the UK in relation to a feature film. Wiggin represented the defendants in these proceedings.

Read the full judgment here.

Also in July, the December 2023 decision of the Northern Irish High Court in Sands v Bond & Ors [2023] NIKB 134 was finally published after reporting restrictions concerning disclosure proceedings brought by the claimants Neil and Donna Sands were lifted. The claimants had applied successfully for a Norwich Pharmacal order to disclose the identity of the organiser(s) of Tattle Life, an online forum in which social media influencers (including the claimants) and celebrities are discussed in a negative light. The concomitant private investigation into Tattle Life eventually identified its organiser as Sebastian Bond. Once he was identified, the reporting restrictions were released and the court published the judgment, which ordered Bond pay the claimants £300,000 in damages for having published unlawful content about them on the website. The judgment highlighted the court’s willingness to use its powers to lift the veil of anonymity so often adopted by Internet users in an effort to abuse others without consequence.

Read the full judgment here.

Back to top

Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Anr v Abbasi and Anr [2025] UKSC 15

In April the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment in Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Abbasi. The decision was in relation to end-of-life proceedings in which the identities of two (already deceased) children, their families and the clinicians who had tended to them had been anonymised by court order. The court held that such Reporting Restriction Orders should end in line with the proceedings themselves, allowing for only a short cooling-off period measured in weeks, not months or years, after their conclusion. The court found that after that point, hospital trusts cannot invoke clinicians’ privacy rights to preserve anonymity. Any continuation must instead be sought by individual clinicians themselves and supported by evidence of a real risk of unlawful harassment or similar wrongful conduct. Notably, the court treated state-funded clinicians in such disputes as public figures performing public functions, which raised the threshold for anonymity and placed substantial weight on freedom of expression interests when considering extended anonymity restrictions. As a result of this ruling, identities of clinicians in such high-profile end-of-life cases related to children will likely become publishable once the brief cooling-off period following judgment expires, unless the clinicians themselves obtain fresh, evidence-based relief.

Read the full judgment here.

Green v the United Kingdom (Application no. 22077/19)

In Green v UK, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) considered whether UK parliamentary privilege offended the Convention (ECHR) rights of Sir Philip Green, a British businessman. The dispute arose from Lord Hain’s disclosure in the House of Lords of Green’s identity in spite of Court of Appeal anonymity orders in force in a breach of confidence case between Sir Philip and The Telegraph newspaper, which sought to publish allegations of sexual harassment, racial abuse and bullying by the peer. The court rejected Green’s claims under his ECHR right to a fair trial, right to privacy and right to effective remedy, holding that the scope of UK parliamentary privilege – akin to a robust speech or debate protection – fell within the state’s margin of appreciation. Despite this finding, the ECtHR underscored concerns regarding the rule of law where parliamentary statements undermine existing judicial injunctions. It also encouraged periodic domestic review of parliamentary privilege. A partial dissent argued that Lord Hain should be treated as a public authority under Article 8 (right of privacy), engaging state responsibility. The takeaway is that absolute parliamentary privilege remains intact, but Convention member states (including the UK) are expected to ensure safeguards to prevent its misuse and protect judicial processes.

Read the full judgment here.

Back to top

The Information Commissioner v Clearview AI Incorporated [2025] UKUT 319 (AAC)

In ICO v Clearview, the regulatory appeal court reversed a decision holding that the UK’s Information Commissioner (ICO) had jurisdiction to issue monetary penalty and enforcement notices for alleged breaches of GDPR and UK GDPR against Clearview AI, a US-based facial recognition provider that scrapes public images and creates a searchable database of facial vectors. The court concluded that Clearview’s processing fell within the GDPR’s territorial scope, rejecting the earlier finding that the ICO did not have jurisdiction to issue the notices against Clearview AI. The court remitted the matter to the lower court to consider the merits of the monetary penalty and enforcement notices. The decision underscores UK regulators’ ability to reach non-UK entities whose processing activities target or affect the UK, even where the operator is headquartered in the US.

Read the full judgment here.

Ministry of Defence v Global Media and Entertainment Ltd and others [2025] EWHC 1806 (Admin)

In July the High Court discharged a super‑injunction – originally granted in September 2023 – that had prohibited disclosure of both a data breach at the UK Ministry of Defence and the injunction’s existence. The breach arose from the 2022 release of a dataset containing personal information of Afghan applicants under UK relocation schemes following the 2021 withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan and the Taliban’s resultant return to power. The data breach raised acute risks of extra‑judicial harm to a number of Afghans. After the High Court initially decided in May 2024 to lift the injunction, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision in July 2024, prompting further review hearings. The High Court ultimately lifted the super‑injunction “once and for all” on 15 July 2025, enabling reporting by multiple media organisations of the fact of the injunction and the breach. The decision showed a recalibrated balance between national security, privacy, and open justice as circumstances had evolved since the inception of the injunction.

Read the full judgment here.

Dale Vince v Associated Newspapers Limited [2025] EWHC 1411 (KB)

In Vince v Associated Newspapers, the High Court addressed the nexus between claims brought under the UK GDPR and for reputational damage. The case concerned a Daily Mail headline stating that a donor to the UK Labour Party had been accused of sexual harassment that appeared alongside a photograph of the claimant Dale Vince, himself a prominent donor to the Labour Party. Vince was not the donor subject to the allegations so he brought a data protection claim for failing to correct his inaccurate data. Given that Vince had already had a defamation claim on the same facts in the same court struck out, the High Court held that the data protection claim that he brought here as a follow-on was an abuse of process and accordingly struck it out. The court further held that Vince’s claim that the newspaper’s processing was unfair had no real prospect of success on the basis that an ordinary reader would not think Vince had been accused of sexual harassment. Drawing on defamation authorities concerning the juxtaposition of text and images, the court emphasised the importance of coherence across legal regimes, namely that for a different standard to apply to defamation claims and data protection claims would introduce incoherence. The takeaway of the decision was that although reputational damages may be available in data protection, the court showed its reluctance to use data protection to broaden the protection that the law gives to reputation in defamation.

In October the Court of Appeal granted Vince permission to appeal the High Court’s decision. In granting permission, the court indicated it is arguable that the judge of first instance failed to identify with sufficient clarity the basis for abuse of process; that there is room to argue that courts adjudicating data protection claims should not uncritically import defamation principles; and that the High Court may have overemphasised legal coherence and defamation concepts in striking out the claim.

Read the full judgment here.

Back to top

Rinkoff v Baby Cow Productions [2025] EWHC 39 (IPEC)

In January the IPEC dismissed a claim in copyright brought by comedian Joshua Rinkoff that the format of his series “Shambles” was a protectable dramatic work that Baby Cow’s “Live at the Moth Club” series had infringed. In finding against Rinkoff, the court added to a line of authorities limiting the scope of protection for format rights in TV and film productions. It held that the features pleaded by Rinkoff as protectable were not present across his series’ episodes; were described at too high a level; and were not organised into a coherent, repeatable framework capable of performance. As such, the format lacked sufficient precision, unity, and fixation to qualify for protection in copyright. Even if copyright had subsisted in the format as pleaded by Rinkoff, the court found that Baby Cow had not infringed on the basis that the alleged similarities between the series were general and there was no evidence of conscious or unconscious copying. Wiggin represented Baby Cow in these proceedings.

Read the full judgment here.

Getty Images (US) Inc and others v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)

In November the High Court handed down its decision in the AI copyright case Getty Images v Stability AI. The much-anticipated judgment concerned Getty Images’ various claims in copyright and trade mark infringement against Stability AI, the developer of Stability Diffussion, an image-creation AI tool. Significantly, Getty made the decision pre-trial to drop its primary infringement claim that Stability trained its models on Getty’s works because it could not evidence that such training occurred within the jurisdiction. On Getty’s claim in copyright for secondary copyright infringement, the court rejected Getty’s claim, holding that Stable Diffusion’s model weights are not “infringing copies” because they do not store or reproduce the underlying protected works, even if they are trained on them. The court did find limited, historical trade mark infringement where certain AI outputs had displayed Getty watermarks, but these were of limited value. The court did not give judgment on the passing off claims advanced. The judgment was disappointingly narrow in import (mainly due to the abandonment of most of the copyright claims before the trial began), failing to provide clarity to rights holders as to the viability of potential future claims for copyright infringement against generative AI developers. The finding on secondary copyright infringement is, in any event, a blow to rights holders (but encouraging for AI developers). Getty has already sought, and been granted, permission to appeal against the judgment. The appeal will hinge on the statutory meaning of “infringing copy” – Getty will be asking the Court of Appeal to decide that the “infringing copy” required by statute is not dictated by the ordinary meaning of copy.

Read the full judgment here.

Back to top

Lunak Heavy Industries (UK) Ltd; (2) Lucasfilm Ltd LLC v Tyburn Film Productions Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1643

In December the Court of Appeal struck out a claim arising from the digital recreation of actor Peter Cushing as “Grand Moff Tarkin” in the 2016 Star Wars film Rogue One. Tyburn brought a claim for “unjust enrichment” against Lucasfilm and Rogue One producer Lunak, relying on its 1993 agreement with Cushing, engaging him to appear in a television film. The agreement, made the year before Cushing’s death when he was terminally ill, gave Tyburn broad rights to recreate his likeness in order to complete and exploit the film and, if the project was not made, included a blocking promise that Cushing’s likeness would not be recreated in any other film project without Tyburn’s consent. Cushing’s estate licensed the Defendants to reproduce his likeness in Rogue One, and Tyburn alleged they had been unjustly enriched at Tyburn’s expense. Tyburn’s case was “not sustainable in law” because the essential element of “enrichment at the claimant’s expense” was missing: there was no “transfer of value” from Tyburn to Lunak/ Lucasfilm. The only relevant proprietary rights were the Estate’s; Tyburn’s argument that its contractual permissions/constraints were “akin to property rights” did not assist, nor its argument that there had been indirect enrichment via a series of transactions. The appropriate remedy – if any – would be via a claim for inducing breach of contract. Tyburn may yet seek to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Wiggin represented Lunak and Lucasfilm in these proceedings.

Read the full judgment here.

Back to top

Wikimedia Foundation v Secretary of State [2025] EWHC 2086 (Admin)

In August the High Court handed down a judgment that dismissed a judicial review brought by the Wikimedia Foundation challenging a regulation made under the UK Online Safety Act 2023 which could result in Wikipedia’s being categorised as a “Category 1” service pursuant to the regulation, and thereby subject to the most onerous statutory duties including strict requirements for risk management, identity verification and transparency, and fines up to £18m for breach. The court held that the Secretary of State had lawfully relied on Ofcom’s broad, research-based advice used to devise the regulation and that the regulation’s subsequent adoption of objective criteria not irrational. Claims that the regulation was incompatible with various personal rights under the ECHR were refused for lack of “victim” status on the part of the claimants, though the court acknowledged there was a “powerful case” that applying Category 1 duties to Wikipedia could engage its right of free expression. Crucially, the judgment leaves the door open for future challenges under free expression if Ofcom decides that Wikipedia is in scope of the regulation at some future point.

Read the full judgment here.

Back to top

Palestine Action

In October the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Ammori v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1311. The judgment confirmed that Huda Ammori, co‑founder of Palestine Action, a political activist group, may proceed with a judicial review challenging the UK Home Secretary’s proscription of the group earlier this year. The Home Secretary had submitted to the High Court that instead of pursuing judicial review, Ammori could apply to the Home Secretary to remove the proscription and appeal any refusal of that application to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission. The Court of Appeal found that the High Court had been right to find (earlier this year) that this was not an adequate alternative remedy to judicial review available to Ammori, given that there were ongoing terrorism-related prosecutions linked to alleged support for the group and the urgency of the matter. Ammori challenged the legality of the ban on four grounds, including that it unlawfully interfered with the right to freedom of expression and assembly under the ECHR. These arguments were heard by the Court of Appeal in a three-day hearing that concluded on 2 December, with judgment reserved.

BBC/Trump

UK media lawyers have been closely following President Trump’s various threats to sue the BBC made earlier this year with great interest. On 16 December his threats finally came good when he issued a £10bn claim against the BBC in Florida related to a BBC-produced documentary which was edited to give the impression that he had made a direct call for violent action on 6 January 2021. The BBC has already committed not to show the documentary again and apologised to the President, but stated that it would not pay financial compensation. Trump has issued his claim in defamation and for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The BBC has not yet responded at the time of writing.

Phone hacking

Prince Harry and various other celebrities including Elton John have sued Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Daily Mail, for alleged breaches of privacy arising from what they claim were instances of phone hacking and other illicit news gathering. The story has been in the news throughout the year due to a number of case management hearings which have taken place. Now the trial itself is due to be heard over 9 weeks starting in January 2026. Much of the claimants’ case is founded on a 2021 witness statement signed by Gavin Burrows, a private investigator, in which he allegedly confesses that he engaged in illegal activities on behalf of ANL’s Mail on Sunday. In 2023, Burrows made a separate witness statement disavowing the contents of the 2021 statement and alleging that he had never been paid in cash for work on behalf of ANL or asked to conduct unlawful activities by them. In September 2025, Burrows made a third witness statement in which he restated that he had never carried out illegal activity on ANL’s behalf. More significantly, Burrows claims that he “did not recognise” the 2021 statement, which he claims was “prepared by others” and bears a signature that is “a forgery”. Burrows was an intended witness for the claimants, but in the wake of the publication of the third statement, counsel for the claimants made an application to call that evidence as hearsay, while counsel for ANL asked to court for permission to cross-examine him at trial.

New legislation on freedom of speech at universities

In June the Office for Students (OfS), England’s higher education regulator, issued guidance to support compliance with the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 from 1 August 2025, in an effort to protect freedom of speech at English universities. Universities must take reasonably practicable steps to secure lawful free speech for students, staff, members and visiting speakers, maintain an up-to-date free speech code, and actively promote academic freedom. The guidance sets out a three-step framework. First, confirm whether the speech is lawful; second, where it is lawful, identify and implement reasonably practicable steps to enable it (with safety and legal compliance relevant, but reputational concerns generally not); and third, where facilitation is not possible, ensure any restriction is justified under Article 10 of the ECHR. The OfS also provided context-specific expectations across admissions, appointments, complaints handling, research, and external speaker events, indicating the processes and documentation providers should have in place ahead of implementation.

SLAPP provisions in ECCTA come into force

On 18 June 2025, sections 194 and 195 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) came into force, introducing a statutory definition of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) and empowering courts to dispose of qualifying claims early. The Civil Procedure Rules now provide that courts may strike out a claim at an early stage where it is a SLAPP under ECCTA and the claimant cannot show it is more likely than not to succeed at trial. The regime currently applies only to claims relating to economic crime, and it remains uncertain whether broader reform will be introduced. Although a previous Private Member’s Bill seeking a general anti‑SLAPP framework was revived and is due for a second reading in the House of Commons in January 2026, the Government has signalled no intention to legislate further this session, and the Bill is unlikely to progress given limited Parliamentary time.

AI and copyright

On 19 June 2025, the Data (Use and Access) Bill entered into law as the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. Earlier this year, Baroness Kidron introduced (while it was at Bill stage before the House of Lords) a number of amendments to the aspects of the law pertaining to a potential copyright regime that considers the advent of generative AI while protecting the interests of rights holder across the country. Those amendments included requiring operators of Internet crawlers to comply with UK law if they are marketed in the UK. The UK government has nine months from the date the Act entered into law to produce an economic report on the copyright regime set out in the UK government’s consultation on this area. The UK government must also provide a progress report no later than six months after that date. It follows that the UK appears to remain a long away from having a statutory regime that protects the position of copyright holders better than existing copyright legislation.

New media protocol for material shown in court

In December a new protocol was released governing access by accredited press to prosecution material relied on in criminal courts. It has been developed between the police, the prosecution service and media bodies, in recognition of the importance of the open justice principle: “Transparency improves the quality of justice, enhances public understanding of the process, and bolsters public confidence in the justice system”. The protocol provides that “material relied on by the prosecution in open court should normally be provided to the media if requested”, including material “read out, played or displayed in open court and material placed before a judge and/or jury and referred to in open court”. Material can be withheld, however, if there is a “sufficiently strong legitimate interest” which could include in the interests of justice, victims and their families, or national security. Some material will only be released following consultation with relevant victims and witnesses, including images of victims and recordings of police interviews and calls to emergency services. Find out more here.

Back to top

Noel Anthony Clarke v Guardian News & Media Limited

In August 2025, The Guardian’s defeat of a libel claim brought by British actor and director Noel Clarke marked the first time that a major news publisher had successfully pleaded the public interest defence since it was codified by s4 of the Defamation Act 2013.

The s4 public interest defence was based upon the common law defence of responsible publication, which arose from the case of Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001] 2 AC 127, and requires three limbs to be fulfilled. First, that the statement complained was on a matter of public interest; secondly, the defendant’s belief that publication was in the public interest; and thirdly, that such belief was reasonable.

The articles that Mr Clarke complained of concerned allegations of his abuse of his power and status as a successful figure in the film and television industry to sexually harass and bully women he worked with. The Judge, Mrs Justice Steyn DBE, agreed with The Guardian that there was a public interest in matters of workplace misconduct and the effect of power imbalances. She further found that the subjective belief of The Guardian’s witnesses, including its editor-in-chief Katharine Viner, was clearly demonstrated.

The reasonableness of this belief was evidenced in substantial contemporaneous disclosure, including of several public interest memoranda, which had been provided to senior editors prior to publication for consideration of the investigation and proposed scope of publication. The court has previously noted that media organisations should be able to present records of decision making and reasoning if seeking to rely on the s4 public interest defence (per Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2021] EWHC 1797 (QB)), and we understand this case was the first time that such substantial memoranda were considered by the court at trial.

The memos set out the matters on which the story would rely and the nature and extent of corroborative evidence. They also addressed matters which would not be relied upon and which would be excluded from the article on privacy grounds.  Following right of reply responses from Mr Clarke’s lawyers and others, the memoranda addressed how sources had responded to Mr Clarke’s rebuttals and the further steps that had been taken by The Guardian in consequence. These memos proved invaluable in demonstrating the facts and matters considered by The Guardian’s editors before a decision to publish was taken, not least in circumstances where a large number of new sources contacted the newspaper immediately following publication.

Mr Clarke challenged the reasonableness of The Guardian’s belief on a number of grounds, including “hostility” of sources and possible conspiracy and, relatedly, “contamination” and collusion among sources; failures of duty to verify, including that the investigation period prior to publication was in his submission too short; deletion of documents; neutrality of questioning, including whether sources were led; inadequate time to reply; and editorial tone and presentation.

The court rejected Mr Clarke’s claim that he lacked adequate time to respond to The Guardian’s invitation to comment on the allegations.  Reasonable time was found to be context-specific and The Guardian’s assessment was reasonable in considering the total time allowed to Mr Clarke (3 weekdays); that the matters were in his personal knowledge; that extensive responses were in fact obtained (running to 29 pages) and prominently included; and that The Guardian had reasonable concerns that Mr Clarke had been contacting sources and was at risk of applying pressure on them to retract their accounts.

At trial, Mr Clarke identified only two examples of potentially leading questions in source interviews.  The court held those examples as merely conversational or having been used to clarify a source’s already known position. His claim that the journalists had “egged on” sources to make allegations, including by disclosing one source’s account to another, was also rejected: the Judge found that the source in question had already made allegations and that the journalist simply shared more information to encourage her to go on the record.

As to the length of the investigation running to 3.5 weeks, The Guardian maintained that taking further time to source more general positive comments would not have undermined the extensive allegations about the Claimant’s misconduct. Its journalists had further sought to corroborate allegations with third parties quickly, to avoid their conferring, and sought documentary corroboration. The court found that the verification and corroboration steps were reasonable in this regard.

As to editorial tone and presentation, the court accepted The Guardian’s evidence that it had presented the key article in a measured and accurate way; that it had presented the Claimant’s denials adequately, and allowed readers to assess both sides.

The Guardian’s successful defence provides precedent for the value of careful editorial record-keeping at the pre-publication stage, both in capturing the matters considered by decision-makers before publication and through records of interviews and the investigation process to help demonstrate the reasonableness of belief in the public interest.