Take 10 - 14 November 2025

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.

BBC refuses to pay compensation to Trump in response to threatened $1 billion lawsuit

The BBC has refused a demand for compensation made by US President Donald Trump following his threat to sue the BBC for $1 billion in damages in Florida over a Panorama documentary episode ("Trump: A Second Chance?") broadcast on 28 October 2024. Following the leak of an internal BBC memo reported by The Telegraph, President Trump's claims the episode broadcast a selectively edited clip of his speech on 6 January 2021 which appeared to show him inciting the 'Capitol riots' which he labelled as "false, defamatory, disparaging and inflammatory". His legal team have demanded that the BBC agrees to issue an apology, retracts the programme and "appropriately compensate" President Trump for the harm cause, failing which a lawsuit for no less than $1 billion (£760m) will be filed today (Friday 14 November).

It seems likely that any claim for libel will be pursued in the US state of Florida, despite the programme only reportedly being broadcast in the UK. President Trump is no stranger to pursuing claims in the UK – his recent data protection claim against Orbis Intelligence concerning alleged inaccuracies in the so-called 'Steele Dossier' was dismissed by the Court last year – but any defamation claim over the broadcast is now time-barred in England and Wales. In contrast, the limitation period in Florida is two years from the date of publication.  It is generally harder for litigants to sue over libel claims in the US due to the significant protection given to freedom of speech under the First Amendment, following the landmark US Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), which held that for a public figure to succeed in a libel claim in the US they need to prove actual malice on behalf of the publisher.  Despite the high threshold to overcome, the size of US damages awards are likely to be a substantial concern to UK media organisations more generally.

Carter-Ruck sues the SRA for requesting privileged material

Carter-Ruck and Mohammed Amersi, a former Conservative Party donor, have issued a Part 8 claim against the SRA seeking a declaration that the SRA are not entitled to require the production of legally privileged material for the purposes of a regulatory investigation.  The investigation relates to an SRA investigation into Carter-Ruck in relation to its representation of Mr Amersi in his well-publicised claims against former Conservative MP Charlotte Leslie. Mr Amersi's defamation claim was struck out in June 2023, with the High Court finding that Mr Amersi had failed to satisfy the 'serious harm' requirement.  Ms Leslie subsequently reported the firm to the SRA alleging that it had knowingly participated in a SLAPP. Mr Amersi has vehemently rejected the SLAPP allegation and Carter-Ruck denies any suggestion of misconduct.

Section 44B of the Solicitors Act 1974 gives the SRA the power to issue a Notice to a solicitor to provide information or documents where it is necessary for the purpose of an investigation into whether there has been professional misconduct or any failure to comply with any legal or regulatory obligations. It is regularly used by the SRA to seek production of privileged documents from the recipient law firms. This point has not previously been determined by the High Court in England and Wales. However, in 2022, the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland ruled that the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, the equivalent regulatory authority in that jurisdiction, was not entitled to recover legal privileged information from a solicitor's file to investigate a third-party complaint without client consent.  If the Part 8 claim succeeds, the SRA's ability to investigate law firms for alleged breaches of the SRA Code of Conduct will be severely hampered save in circumstances where a client agrees to a waiver of privilege.

Dale Vince granted permission to appeal

The Court of Appeal has granted Dale Vince permission to appeal the High Court's decision to strike out as an abuse of process a data protection claim alleging unfairness under Article 5(1)(a) of the UK GDPR against Associated Newspapers Limited, which was issued shortly before a claim in defamation over the same article was dismissed. Mr Vince's claim related to two Daily Mail articles which published photographs of him alongside a headline which reported that Labour had repaid £100,000 to a "sex pest donor". The content of the articles made clear that Mr Vince was not the 'sex pest' mentioned in the headline. Lord Justice Warby granted permission on two grounds. First, it was arguable that the Judge at first instance had not identified with sufficient clarity or precision the basis on which the claim was an abuse of process, having found no abuse under Henderson. Second, the Court of Appeal may conclude that the lower court gave too much weight to the defamation principles and the importance of legal coherence in a case relying on principles of unfairness in data protection law.

This is the third case in which Mr Vince has been granted permission to appeal in 'media' claims in recent weeks. On 10 November, Mr Vince was granted permission to appeal findings at a preliminary issue trial in the libel claim of Vince v Bailey related to the second, third and 'malice' conditions of Mr Bailey's honest opinion defence. That appeal has been jointly listed with the appeal in Bridgen v Hancock which raises the same issue. We understand that Mr Vince has also been granted permission to appeal the preliminary issue decision on the findings of fact that the publication complained of was a statement of opinion and bore the meaning that was found in Vince v Tice [2025] EWHC 412(KB). The appeal hearings are yet to be listed. RPC acts for ANL and Mr Hancock.

Nicklin J orders disclosure of documents held by third-parties in Lawrence & ors v ANL

On 10 November 2025, Mr Justice Nicklin handed down judgment ordering standard disclosure of documents be provided by a 'Research Team' engaged by the Claimants in wide-ranging claims of unlawful information gathering brought against Associated Newspapers. Nicklin J held that documents in the possession of their Research Team (two journalists and an ex-MP who have worked closely with solicitors acting for claimants in the concurrent litigation against NGN and MGN) were within the Claimants' control due to the practical and cooperative relationship between the Claimants and the Research Team who were formally engaged in April 2022 to assist in the litigation. Irrespective of the capacity in which the members of the Research Team originally obtained documents, the individuals now held the documents as agents for the Claimants. Under CPR 31.8, control for the purposes of disclosure is not limited to physical possession or enforceable rights but also includes situations where there is a practical arrangement or understanding that provides unfettered access. Moreover, there was evidence to show that the Research Team had voluntarily provided access to their documents and there was no suggestion that access to their documents had been withheld. Crucially, the court rejected the Claimants' attempt to limit disclosure to documents obtained post-engagement and ruled that all relevant documents held by the Research Team, regardless of when they were acquired, are within the Claimant's control and therefore must be disclosed if they fall within the scope of standard disclosure.

Ofcom rules on TalkTV breach of Broadcasting Code impartiality obligations 

Ofcom has found that a TalkTV broadcast titled "Kevin O'Sullivan's Political Asylum" which aired in January 2025, breached Rule 5.5 of the Broadcasting Code which requires broadcasters to preserve due impartiality on matters of political controversy relating to current public policy. The broadcast contained repeated allegations that the Labour government postponed local elections out of fear that Reform UK would win and unfavourably compared Labour to authoritarian regimes, without giving due weight to the government's position. Although TalkTV argued that the personal view format and audience expectations justified the approach, Ofcom concluded that alternative viewpoints were not properly reflected or contextualised in the broadcast. In fact, Ofcom deemed that the broadcast's "brief" references to the government's position were insufficient and easily dismissed by the presenter and other contributors. Ofcom emphasised that even opinion-led programmes must preserve impartiality when discussing contentious public policy which underscores the importance of balanced coverage in discourse concerning democracy.

Police encouraged to speak to the press to 'rebuild trust'

As part of a consultation on its media and communications standards, the College of Policing has released new draft guidance seeking to revise and improve how police forces share information with the media. In a welcome move towards transparency and repairing the relationship between police forces and the media, the draft guidance encourages officers and staff of all ranks and roles to speak to journalists and have "regular, meaningful interaction and engagement" with the press. It also provides further guidance on when information about ongoing police investigations should be released to the media, including the confirmation of the nationality and/or ethnicity of a defendant in high-profile investigations.  The consultation is open until 4 January 2026, and submissions can be made via an online questionnaire here.

Developments in online safety regulation

Ofcom has launched a call for evidence ahead of preparing two statutory reports under the Online Safety Act 2023 focussing on the use of age assurance technologies and the role app stores play in exposing children to harmful content. The age assurance consultation invites stakeholders to provide evidence on how online services have implemented age assurance measures; their effectiveness in protecting children; and any challenges that might have hindered their implementation such as financial, technological, or privacy concerns. The app store consultation aims to analyse how such stores may facilitate children’s exposure to harmful material by evaluating the effectiveness of current safeguards like age ratings and parental controls. It will also explore whether enhanced age assurance or other protective mechanisms could strengthen children’s online safety. Ofcom’s findings will shape policy recommendations to the UK Government, with reports due in July 2026 (age assurance) and January 2027 (app stores). Responses are due by 17:00 on 1 December 2025 and can be submitted here. Ofcom has also published an update to its timelines for implementing the remaining phases of the Online Safety Act it intends to publish its final guidance, with its guidance for improving online safety for women and girls due on 25 November 2025.

On a similar note, Ofcom, the European Commission, and Australia’s eSafety Commissioner have announced a joint initiative to promote safer digital environments for children worldwide. Their collaboration aims to ensure that young users experience “safe, inclusive, and empowering access” to technology. The initiative will be supported by a dedicated expert group on age assurance who will aim to develop evidence-based verification solutions whilst maintaining privacy for users.

Royals win privacy case against French magazine

A French court has ruled that Paris Match, a French gossip magazine, infringed the privacy of the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children by publishing paparazzi photographs taken during a private ski holiday in Courchevel earlier this year. The images, which showed the family on the balcony of their lodge, were described by Kensington Palace as “grossly intrusive”. The couple sued the magazine, seeking damages, but agreed to drop their claim in exchange for a judicial notice acknowledging the breach and requiring Paris Match to pay legal costs. The notice, printed in Paris March's recent issue, confirms that both the print and online articles violated the family’s right to respect for private life and image.

This case continues the well-trodden path of the British royal family enforcing their privacy rights in respect of alleged breaches by French media organisations. The Princess of Wales was awarded €100,000 in 2017 after suing Closer for publishing topless photographs of her sunbathing on a private holiday in 2012. Prince William’s mother, Diana, famously died in Paris in 1997 while being pursued by photographers, a tragedy that has heightened sensitivity around royal family privacy claims in France. It is notable that the majority of the royal family rarely litigate against the UK media, with the exception being the spate of recent claims by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

ECHR decline to compel the UK to investigate election interference

On 22 July 2025, the Strasbourg Court handed down judgment in Bradshaw & Others v United Kingdom (App no. 15653/22).  While the underlying proceedings will not be of particular interest to media practitioners, its readiness to extend the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to create new positive obligations to combat the challenges created by new technologies such as social media will be.  The proceedings follow the applicants being refused permission to apply for judicial review to challenge the UK Prime Minister's decision not to direct an independent investigation into Russian interference with the UK's democratic process in the 2014 referendum on Scottish Independence, the 2016 EU membership referendum and the 2019 general election, with the High Court finding that it was not arguable that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR – the right to free elections – required the UK government to undertake an independent investigation. Upholding the High Court's decision, the Strasbourg Court held that the UK government's response to the threat of Russian election interference did not fall outside the wide margin of appreciation afforded to it, while acknowledging there is an obligation on member states to address the real risk to freedom of expression as a consequence of hostile interference in elections via new technologies. While the decision did not touch on Articles 8 or 10 of the ECHR, which protect the rights to privacy and freedom of expression, it is a reminder that the ECHR is a 'living instrument' and the rights afforded by it are not set in stone. It may not be the last word on the matter as the applicants have referred the case to the Grand Chamber. Detailed analysis of this judgment can be found on 11KBW's data blog here.

Law Commission report on contempt of court laws

Next week, the Law Commission will publish the first part of its report on its review of contempt of court laws on Tuesday 18 November 2025. The report will focus on liability for contempt and the role of the Attorney General in contempt proceedings. Part one of the report and a summary will be published here.  Part two, which will address all remaining issues, will be published in 2026.

Quote of the fortnight

"Trump's first problem is that, according to the BBC, Panorama is not actually available in the US and neither is the BBC iPlayer - unless you're using a VPN in a naughty way, which you might not want to ventilate in a court of law. So what's the damage?"

Alan Rusbridger, The Independent, 13 November 2025.