Take 10 - 11 July 2025

Welcome to RPC's Media and Communications law update. This month's edition on key media developments and the latest cases.

RPC's Media and Communications law update

"Article 10.1: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

ICO did not act outside its powers when issuing Tiktok with £12.7 million fine

On 4 July 2025, following a preliminary issue hearing, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) had acted within its powers when it issued a £12.7 million Monetary Penalty Notice (MPN) to TikTok for various historic GDPR breaches.

TikTok argued with the support of expert evidence that the content on its platform primarily promotes creativity, so it was processing data for 'special purposes' per s.174 DPA 2018 which includes the processing of data for academic, artistic, literary and journalistic purposes. Under s.156 DPA 2018, the ICO can only issue a MPN to a data controller regarding the processing of personal data for the special purposes if there has first been (a) a determination under section 174 with respect to the data or the processing has taken effect; and (b) a court has granted leave for the notice to be given. TikTok argued that the ICO was acting outside of its authority when it issued the MPN as it had not obtained the court's prior approval to issue the MPN.

The FTT held that the MPN was only issued in relation to TikTok's unlawful processing of the personal data of children under 13, not for the processing of personal data for 'special purposes'. Given that under-13s were not allowed to use the platform under TikTok's own Terms of Service, the processing activities could not be said to be relating to their use of TikTok irrespective of whether the processing of other users' data could have amounted to the processing of data for 'special purposes' [109-110]. Subject to TikTok appealing this decision, the FTT is next expected to consider the substantive appeal against the findings of breach and the penalty amount. 

High Court Defers Decision on MI5 Contempt Proceedings

On 2 July, the long-running injunction proceedings between the BBC and the Attorney General (on behalf of MI5) took yet another turn when the High Court ruled that it is 'premature' to determine whether MI5 should face contempt of court proceedings. The decision follows an admission by MI5 that it repeatedly provided false evidence to the Court as to whether an intelligence source, known only as “X”, was indeed an agent of MI5.

Whether or not the BBC could identify X in its coverage was a key issue in the injunction proceedings and although an injunction was granted to protect X's identity, the court later discovered that MI5 had disclosed X's status to a BBC journalist, contradicting its own "neither confirm nor deny" policy. MI5 apologised and conducted two internal investigations, both concluding that the submission of false evidence was the result of a series of mistakes rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. However, the court found these investigations to be inadequate as they suffered from serious procedural deficiencies such that "their conclusions cannot presently be relied on". The court also criticised MI5 for providing evidence in a "piecemeal and unsatisfactory way" only following repeated judicial intervention. The question of whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against MI5 was adjourned pending the outcome of a further investigation which is to be carried out under the auspices of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who has oversight of MI5's surveillance activities.  

ECHR rules defamation finding infringed Article 10 rights 

On 3 July, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that a Cypriot judgment in the case of Arvanitis and Philelefheros Public Company Ltd v Cyprus (Application no. 49917/11) infringed the journalist's and newspaper publisher's rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).The applicants published an article in the daily newspaper Phileleftheros, criticising a well-known lawyer, CK, who had himself written publicly about recovering two family paintings left in occupied Cyprus after the 1974 Turkish invasion. CK asserted that the article falsely portrayed him as advising clients against the national interest, and the applicants defended the article on the basis that its contents is true and that it amounted to fair comment concerning a matter in the public interest. Both defences were rejected by the domestic courts as they found that it had no basis in the truth and that the contents of the article went beyond an expression of fair comment as it contained "vulgar and bad faith personal attacks on CK".

The applicants therefore appealed to the ECtHR on the basis that the decision amounted to a violation of their Article 10 rights. The Government did not dispute the existence of an interference but said that it was justified as it had been prescribed by a domestic law in place with the aim of protecting the rights and reputation of others. The ECHR’s analysis therefore focused on whether the domestic courts had struck an appropriate balance between CK’s right to reputation and the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, particularly in the context of public interest journalism.

The court found that the Cypriot courts had failed to give sufficient weight to the fact that the applicants’ article was published in direct response to CK’s own article and that the subject matter of the articles were of considerable public interest in Cypriot society. By engaging in this debate, CK had, in the court’s view, opened himself up to public scrutiny and criticism. Whilst the court accepted that the applicants had used exaggerated expressions in the article, the style of expression did not overstep the boundaries permissible to a free press and so the domestic courts should not have ruled that the language used had an impact on whether the article constituted "fair comment".

The ECtHR therefore concluded that the interference with the applicants’ article was "disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and, accordingly, was not necessary in a democratic society” [43]. The damages and costs payment awarded by the domestic court in the underlying proceedings was effectively reversed and the applicants were awarded a further EUR 6,500 for non-pecuniary damages, as well as their costs.  

DSIT Designates Statement of Strategic Priorities for Online Safety

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) has formally published its Final Statement of Strategic Priorities (SSP) for Online Safety, marking a significant development in the implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA). The SSP, authorised under sections 172 and 173 of the OSA, sets out the government’s expectations for online safety regulation and provides a strategic framework to which Ofcom must have regard when exercising its online safety functions.

The SSP identifies five key themes that are intended to guide Ofcom’s regulatory approach and the wider online safety landscape:

1. Safety by Design: Emphasising the integration of safety features into online platforms and services from the outset, rather than relying solely on reactive measures.
2. Transparency and Accountability: Requiring platforms to operate with openness about their policies, processes, and the outcomes of their safety interventions, thus enabling effective scrutiny by regulators, users, and the public.
3. Agile Regulation: Encouraging Ofcom to adopt a flexible and responsive regulatory approach, capable of adapting to the rapid evolution of technology and online harms.
4. Inclusivity and Resilience: Promoting measures that ensure all users, including vulnerable groups, are protected from potential harms including disinformation and empowered to participate safely online.
5. Technology and Innovation: Supporting the use of innovative tools and approaches to enhance online safety, whilst ensuring that regulation does not stifle beneficial technological progress.

Ofcom now has 40 days to publish an explanation of how it proposes to respond to the priorities set out in the SSP. Thereafter, Ofcom must report annually on the actions it has taken in consequence of the SSP, ensuring ongoing transparency and accountability in the regulatory process.

The importance of robust online safety regulation is emphasised by recent enforcement actions, such as the sentencing of Tyler Webb. Webb was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment after using online platforms to manipulate and encourage a vulnerable individual to attempt suicide. The case highlights the real-world harms that can arise from online abuse and the critical need for effective regulations and proactive safety measures by communications providers.

EU Commissions publishes consultation on guidelines for VLOPs

The European Commission has launched a consultation on proposed guidelines to protect media service providers from wrongful content removal by very large online platforms (VLOPs). This is taking effect under the upcoming European Media Freedom Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1083), which takes effect in August 2025. This regulation will mandate VLOPs to notify media service providers if they have plans to remove their content and their rationale behind why they intend to remove this content. Consequently, media providers will have 24 hours to respond to any notifications made. Article 18(9) of the Act requires the Commission to issue guidelines to implement safeguards against the unjustified removal of professionally produced media content, especially content which contributes to public interest, culture, or democratic debate. There are some key proposals arising from these guidelines such as ensuring safeguards are user-friendly and easily accessible, while attempting to allow flexibility for VLOPs and the implementation of a standardised questionnaire with checkbox options to help media providers prove compliance with Article 18. VLOPs can consult regulators or self-regulatory bodies if in doubt about a provider’s compliance and civil society and fact-checkers may be involved in assessing compliance. Feedback on the consultation is open until 23 July 2025 and can be found here.

Ofcom releases consultation to amend online safety codes of practice

On the 30th of June 2025, Ofcom launched a consultation on proposed amendments for its online safety codes of practice under the Online Safety Act 2023. These revisions target the spread of illegal content, specifically during crises through requiring platforms to have protocols to manage critical surges of such content. Ofcom requires services to ensure that users are not recommended potential illegal content unless it has been verified whilst placing expectations on services to enhance protections around live-streaming and improve reporting functionality.

Ofcom has recommended that services utilise "hash making"; a process for detecting content which has already been previously identified. Hash making can be used to detect intimate image abuse and terrorism content with the broader use of automated tools to identify child abuse, fraud and self-harm content.

To tackle repeat offenders, Ofcom proposes new user sanctions to providers. In safeguarding children, Ofcom advises stricter controls on livestream interactions, stronger age assurance measures, and proactive technologies to detect grooming and child sexual abuse material (CSAM), including blocking users who share CSAM.

Reponses must be submitted by using this consultation response form by 5pm on 20 October 2025.

NDAs to silence victims of misconduct to be banned 

The Employment Rights Bill will be amended to invalidate any non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) which aim to silence workers against harassment, discrimination or any other criminal misconduct. The new law is expected to become enforceable later this year and will finally be on par with similar bans in Ireland, the US, and some Canadian provinces. The proposed amendments to the Bill will be debated in the House of Lords on 14 July and, if passed, will subsequently need to be approved by MPs as well before being ratified. This brings the law in line with solicitors' regulatory obligations, particularly the SRA's Warning Notice here regarding NDAs which emphasized the need for solicitors to avoid advising on NDAs aimed at preventing individuals from reporting criminal offences or otherwise co-operating with a police investigation. For more information on solicitors' duties in relation to NDAs as required by the SRA, read the RPC's blog on the issue here.

Hague 2019: English judgments now more easily enforceable in contracting states

The Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague 2019) came into force in the UK on 1 July 2025. Hague 2019 is expected to establish a more uniform and predictable regime for enforcing English judgments abroad thereby reducing time and costs incurred in cross-border litigation. This is a welcome development since Brexit ended the EU framework allowing for the recognition of English judgments abroad and amounts to an upgrade on the current position under the Hague 2005 Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (Hague 2005) which only allows for the recognition of English judgments abroad where there is an exclusive English jurisdiction clause. Contracting states to Hague 2019 include all EU member states (apart from Denmark), Ukraine, Albania, Montenegro, and Uruguay with each state having their own timeline for enforcement into national law. Several other states (such as the US) have signed Hague 2019 but have not yet ratified it . Judgments must meet one of the conditions listed in Article 5 of Hague 2019 for it to apply. Conditions include for example if the defendant is "habitually resident" in the UK when they joined the proceedings; if the defendant expressly consents to the English court's jurisdiction during the proceedings, or if the contract was due to be performed in the UK. 

SLAPPs: Greenpeace launches "anti-SLAPP" proceedings against US company, Energy Transfer, whilst oil firm ENI labelled a SLAPP 'addict'

Greenpeace has brought anti-SLAPP proceedings in its home territory, the Netherlands, against US oil and gas company Energy Transfer marking the first use of the EU's Anti-SLAPP Directive (EU) 2024/1069 which was rolled out in April 2024.

In March 2025, a North Dakota state court awarded Energy Transfer over $660 million in its defamation case against Greenpeace. Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of defamation and orchestrating criminal behaviour when it allegedly coordinated the indigenous Standing Rock Sioux Tribe protests in 2016-2017 against Energy Transfer's Dakota Access Pipeline project. Greenpeace has described the US case, which is still ongoing, as a SLAPP.  This latest lawsuit sees Energy Transfer back in court albeit in the Netherlands. The new Directive allows groups to bring anti-SLAPP lawsuits against governments or companies even if the SLAPP occurs outside of the EU. Nevertheless, as Greenpeace is based in the Netherlands and the damage caused by the $660 million awarded to Energy Transfer will affect Greenpeace's operations in the Netherlands, both EU and Dutch law will apply. Although Energy Transfer has yet to officially acknowledge the proceedings, the case will continue in absentia even if the energy company refuses to participate. The proceedings are expected to last 12-18 months with the first hearing in the case having taken place on 2 July 2025.

Elsewhere in the energy industry, Italian oil firm Eni also made the news after The Guardian reported that it had filed at least six defamation lawsuits against NGOs and journalists since 2019 resulting in it being awarded "SLAPP addict of the year" by NGOs. Campaigners are labelling these lawsuits as SLAPPs designed to silence criticism of the company's environmental impact.

Proposed anonymity of firearms officers in the Crime and Policing Bill

The Crime and Policing Bill (the Bill) is currently pending its second reading in the House of Lords, having passed through the House of Commons report stage by 312 votes to 95 on 17 and 18 June 2025. The Bill seeks to introduce criminal justice reforms and support the government's "safer streets" initiative, whilst carrying over certain provisions from the previous Conservative government's Criminal Justice Bill 2023-2024.

Clauses 152 to 155 of the Bill, if implemented, would grant new protections to firearms officers charged with offences committed whilst carrying out their duties by introducing a presumption of anonymity. The presumption would apply until the point of conviction in criminal proceedings. Under clause 152(3) the court must withhold the defendant's name, address and date of birth from the public and give reporting directions restricting the publication of anything likely to identify the defendant (including their name, address, where they work and any image of the defendant) unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. Judges can also make anonymity order if it is considered necessary in the interests of justice.

This follows the trial of Sergeant Martyn Blake, an armed police officer who was charged with murder after shooting and killing Chris Kaba on 5 September 2022 during a stop and search operation in Streatham, and the Home Office's subsequent review of the police's investigatory procedures where police officers use force which revealed that officers no longer trusted the investigatory system and were being deterred from carrying firearms.

Whilst the government accepts that Article 10 ECHR rights are engaged by these measures, in light of the provisions restricting reporting, this was justified by the real and immediate risk to the defendant's life that publishing their identity would create. Nevertheless, it emphasizes that judges do have discretion to depart from the presumptions, and safeguards are in place to protect the rights of the media, including a requirement on judges to invite representations from the media when considering whether to make, revoke or vary anonymity measures.

Quote of the fortnight

"Our European democracies are built on the right of the people to freely express themselves, as well as their right to receive information. With the European Media Freedom Act we are protecting media service providers online. As fundamental players in preserving media pluralism and the integrity of information, media organisations must have more oversight on their content online.” Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, the Rule of Law and Consumer Protection, Michael McGrath. Source here.

Brought to you by RPC's Media team