Take 10 - 12 June 2026

Welcome back to RPC's Media and Communications law update where we recap on the key media judgments and developments over the last few months.

"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."

Social media restrictions for children

Keir Starmer is expected to announce a new policy setting out social media restrictions for children within the next week. The announcement follows a three-month government consultation considering children's habits online and potential safety interventions which came to a close on 26 May 2026. Amidst reports that the policy was expected to include a ban on social media for U16s, skills minister Baroness Jacqui Smith told Sky News this week “This isn't as clear cut as some people like to think it is…We need to pick here is what is going to be most effective for protecting young people from the bad sides of social media…That might mean going further than, for example, the social media ban in Australia went on certain functionalities.”   

Starmer has separately told tech companies including Apple and Google to take steps through software to prevent children from taking, sending or viewing sexually explicit images on phones and other devices. The government has asked companies to implement measures on a voluntary basis for now, but has warned that legislation will be introduced in three months if they do not comply. 

In other online safety news, Ofcom has published draft amendments to its online safety codes of practice to encourage platforms to put protocols in place to respond to spikes in illegal content during crises.  The regulator has also sent an open letter reminding platforms of their duties to tackle illegal content which is expected to see an uptick during the World Cup, primarily through the form of online abuse targeted at players in the tournament. 

High Court dismisses application to strike out truth defence

On 3 June 2026, Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed the Claimant's application for strike out and/or summary judgment over the Defendant's truth defence in the libel claim Picker v Tew. The case concerns two emails sent by the Defendant to university staff in which the Defendant alleged that the Claimant had sexually assaulted her following a night of heavy drinking in 2021.

Given the large number of highly significant and complex factual disputes between the parties (summarised at [83]), it is perhaps unsurprising that the application was unsuccessful.  Nonetheless, the judgment provides a helpful summary of the key authorities relevant to strike out and summary judgment applications over truth defences, including the extent to which evidence can be considered ([36] to [39]); how the court should approach meaning when it is unresolved ([42] to [47]); the relevant burden and standard of proof ([48] to [50]); and the 'flexible' application of that standard depending on the seriousness of the allegation ([50] to [51]). 

Guidance on identifiability of data subjects from anonymised data

On 2 June 2026, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) handed down a decision with guidance on when anonymised data relates to an "identified or identifiable" natural person, and is therefore personal data.

The data in issue related to c.8,000 schoolchildren who sat the 11+ exam in Kent in 2024.  Pursuant to FOIA, the Appellant had requested, for each candidate, their three scores and their date of birth (save where fewer than five candidates shared the same birthday).  Kent Council had rejected the request on the basis disclosure would involve unlawful processing of personal data. The key question for the FTT was whether the information sought was personal data at all.  The ICO argued it was, given the possibility of a child having shared one of their scores with a third party.  The regulator said that child may be identifiable where the third party knows their birthday or where the score is unique.

The FTT rejected that approach: it was not satisfied that disclosure would result in identification through "means reasonably likely to be used by the public at large".  In particular, the ICO had not identified any "objective mechanism inherent in the dataset" that would enable identification without conjecture or external knowledge.  In considering whether the public would realistically identify any data subjects, the FTT deployed the 'motivated intruder' concept, that being someone "reasonably competent and determined" who has access to public domain information and can draw inferences, but who has no specialist technical expertise, insider access or unlawfully obtained information, and does not engage in criminality. 

Outgoing Ofcom Chairman responds to GB News criticism 

Business leader and former Channel 4 Chair, Sir Ian Cheshire, has been appointed as Ofcom's new Chair following Lord Michael Grade's term coming to a close in April 2026.  Sir Ian has indicated a commitment to ensuring that the regulator is guided by those "most exposed to online harms" and to working with the Government constructively to effectively implement the OSA, including the Government's "recent action to build on it".

In an interview with Politics Home, the outgoing chair, Lord Grade, said he could "now speak [freely]" following the end of his tenure with Ofcom.  Amongst other topics, Lord Grade responded to recent claims that the regulator fails to hold GB News to the same standards of impartiality as other broadcasters, remarking “The same rules apply to GB News as apply to the BBC, Sky, ITN, whoever…All news programmes are the result of editorial choices made all along the line. What story are we going to cover? How are we going to cover it? Who do we interview? What are we going to ask them? What are we going to use? Where does it go in the running order? Everything’s a choice, all the way up. Because GB News make different editorial choices necessarily on each news day from the BBC, ITN or Sky, doesn’t make it wrong.”

Court considers risk of reputational harm in anonymity application

On 11 June 2026, Guy Vassall-Adams KC – sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge – handed down judgment for the Defendant in Tian v Refinitiv.  The Claimant, who is the subject of an entry on the World-Check database, was seeking Norwich Pharmacal relief from the Defendant, which operates the database.

The judgment relates to a number of interlocutory applications made by both parties, including applications made by the Claimant for a private hearing, anonymity and to prevent public access to the court file.  In rejecting these applications, the Court emphasised that departures from the principle of open justice are exceptional – the judgment helpfully outlines four key principles governing such departures at [7].  The Claimant's attempt to rely on Article 8 when seeking anonymity given the potential reputational impact of reports on the proceedings failed, with the Court noting that in the context of disputes over court reporting, Articles 6 and 10 usually prevail against Article 8 reputational rights: "Were it otherwise, the open justice principle would swiftly be undermined because most court proceedings involve potential reputational harm for either parties or witnesses."

The Court also determined an application made by the Defendant pursuant to CPR 11 that the court had no jurisdiction because the claim form was not served in time.  In finding for the Defendant, the court helpfully summarises at [41] to [54] key authorities on the importance of service of the claim form, CPR 6.15 (service by an alternative method or at an alternative place) and CPR 6.16 (the power of the court to dispense with service of the claim). RPC acts for Refinitiv Limited. 

Trump v BBC

Donald Trump has, according to court filings, refused to provide the BBC with financial information relating to the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, which the BBC has requested in connection with Trump's ongoing libel claim in Florida. Trump is the sole beneficiary of the trust, which is managed by his son, Donald Trump Jr., and which owns, or is associated with, nearly 400 entities. Trump claims that he suffered reputational and financial damage as a result of the BBC's Panorama documentary on the Capital riots. The BBC has requested information from these entities "only because [the] Plaintiff has alleged without limitation that his financial interests have been impacted by [the] Defendants' actions" (see page 5 of the BBC request). Trump's legal team have said that the request is a "fishing expedition" and that it would require "tens of thousands of documents" to be disclosed within 30 days.

In March, the BBC applied to strike out the claim altogether on the grounds that (i) the documentary did not damage Trump’s reputation and (ii) the court lacked jurisdiction because the programme was not published in the US.  No determination on that application has been made yet

Labour MP issues claim over images created by Grok

On 3 June 2026, Jess Asato MP issued a claim against xAI over fake images created of her in a bikini on users' requests via X's chatbot, Grok. The claim is for breach of data protection law and misuse of private information. According to her lawyer's website, Asato is seeking damages, a declaration of illegality, and an order requiring xAI to "stop all further illegality".  xAI is yet to respond to the claim but in January (shortly after the images of Asato and other women were created) X announced it had "implemented technological measures to prevent the Grok account on X globally from allowing the editing of images of real people in revealing clothing".

Should the claim proceed, it will be the first case in this jurisdiction to test where accountability ought to lie between users exploiting AI to create harmful images and the platform responsible for developing the AI system.  

Former MP Charlie Elphicke bankrupts himself after abandoned libel claim

More than four years after discontinuing a libel and privacy claim against the Sunday Times, over articles revealing that he was under suspicion for sex offences and that a rape allegation had been made against him, Charlie Elphicke has placed himself into bankruptcy.  Elphicke took this step just days before withdrawing an application to set aside a statutory demand issued by Times Media, the publisher of the Sunday Times, which gave Times Media a right to initiate its own bankruptcy proceedings against Elphicke. See The Sunday Times' report here (behind a paywall).

In the four years following his discontinuance, Elphicke (who was convicted and jailed for sexual assault whilst the underlying claim was ongoing) issued a number of applications to avoid making any payment to Times Media, including an application to disapply the usual rule under CPR r.38.6 that the discontinuing party pays the defendant's costs. Eventually Times Media secured an order confirming that Elphicke was liable to pay 80% of its costs of the claim, plus 80% of its costs of Elphicke's applications and its own application seeking payment on account.  In spite of Elphicke being ordered to make a six-figure payment on account, no such payment was ever made, leading Times Media to issue the statutory demand with a view to initiating bankruptcy proceedings. The case – and particularly this latest development – serves as a stark reminder that litigation does not always swiftly conclude following discontinuance and that cost recovery is often not straightforward. RPC acts for Times Media Limited. 

Former BBC journalist not required to pay £14K costs to the JAC

Journalist Barnie Choudhury will not be required to pay £14,270.70 in legal costs to the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) after the JAC accused him of acting unreasonably in pursuing contempt of court proceedings following failures by the JAC to comply with freedom of information requests Choudhury had made against it: see Take 10's previous report for further background.

The FTT concluded that Mr Choudhury "held genuine belief" the JAC had not fully complied with the disclosure order and that threatening contempt of court proceedings was the only practical mechanism to enforce the ruling. While the tribunal found some of Mr Choudhury's conduct unreasonable and criticised several allegations he made against the JAC as unsupported by evidence including dishonesty, racism, impropriety, and misconduct, it did not consider his actions sufficient to justify a costs order against him. The tribunal also noted that whilst a reasonable person in Mr Choudhury's position would not have conducted themselves in the way he did, the fact he later withdrew his contempt application eliminated the need for a further hearing thus avoiding additional legal costs for both parties. As a result, the JAC's attempt to recover its legal expenses was refused, sparing Mr Choudhury from a bill that he said could have led to his "financial ruin". Mr Choudhury's own legal costs were covered by his pro bono legal team.

Quote of the fortnight

"In my view, there is a strong public interest in the identification of the Claimant in these proceedings…The public is entitled to draw links between the previous reporting and the present legal challenge. The media is entitled to report these matters in a way that interests their readers, naming the Claimant as part of any story. For all of these reasons, in my view the balance fell decisively in favour of open justice and Article 10 and I refused the anonymity application."

DHCJ Guy Vassall-Adams KC delivering judgment in Tian v Refinitiv Limited [2026] EWHC 1418

Brought to you by RPC's Media team