Take 10 - 22 December 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.

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."

Trump v BBC

President Trump has issued a lawsuit in Florida against the BBC, claiming up to $10 billion in damages over the editing of his 6 January 2021 speech in a Panorama programme titled 'Trump: A Second Chance' which was broadcast in October 2024. He argues the editing was "false and defamatory" and that the BBC "intentionally and maliciously sought to fully mislead its viewers around the world". For further details of the dispute, please see our previous Take 10 newsletters here and here.

The lawsuit relies on two causes of action – defamation and breaching Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The decision to bring the claim in Florida was likely influenced by the state's two-year limitation period for defamation claims (compared to the shorter period of one year in England and Wales) and the availability of higher damages awards (with the upper limit for general damages being around £350,000 in England and Wales).

Much of the commentary on the action has focussed on the significant legal hurdles President Trump is likely to face in establishing that the Florida Court has jurisdiction to hear the claim. Likely with this in mind, his claim cites a number of licensing agreements between the BBC and various third parties who he claims distributed the programme in North America.

If Trump's claim can be heard, he will need to prove the programme was factually false and defamatory, and that he suffered harm. Perhaps most significantly, the long-standing rule in New York Times v Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964) will require Trump as a public figure to prove 'actual malice' on the part of the BBC.

The BBC has made clear that it intends to defend the case in full. The action follows a series of other legal actions by President Trump against other news organisations, including The Wall Street Journal, Paramount/CBS and The New York Times, all of which seek damages of over $1 billion. 

SLAPP allegations dismissed 

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has dismissed two separate SLAPP-related prosecutions against partners at law firms Hamlins and Carter-Ruck.

Hamlins partner Christopher Hutchings had faced a SLAPP complaint following a case in which his client (Party A) had sued an opponent (Party B) for defamation. Following settlement, a without prejudice call had taken place between Mr Hutchings and Party B's lawyer in which it was put forward that Party A would bring contempt proceedings against Party B but would refrain from doing so if Party B granted Party A a copyright licence in respect of other publications. The SRA's case was that Mr Hutchings said two things on the call that were untrue and that the threat itself was improper.  Mr Hutchings denied any wrongdoing. The SDT found the SRA's case to be not proven on 8 December 2025, with reasons to follow.

The SDT also summarily dismissed a separate SLAPP-related prosecution against Claire Gill, a partner at Carter-Ruck. Ms Gill was accused of having made an 'improper threat' in a letter to a defendant whilst acting on behalf of Dr Ruja Ignatova, the proprietor of the OneCoin cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme. In dismissing the action, the SDT stated that Ms Gill's advice at the time was "measured, professional and conscientious" and that the letter, sent with the purpose of protecting Ignatova's reputation following the defendant's efforts to expose the OneCoin fraud, was sent in good faith and was not improper or misleading.

The rulings have prompted a wide range of views on both sides of the SLAPPs debate: see for example commentary in the Law Society Gazette and The Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Open justice in the criminal courts

On 17 December, the CPS published its refreshed Media Protocol which aims to manage media requests for copies of information or material deployed by the prosecution in criminal proceedings for the purpose of contemporaneous reporting on such proceedings held in open court. The updated protocol, which has been developed in conjunction with various policing bodies and senior representatives from the media, replaces the previous iteration of the protocol, ‘Publicity and the Criminal Justice System’, published in 2005, and reflects developments in the law over the past two decades.

The protocol seeks to uphold the open justice principle while strengthening accurate and transparent reporting of criminal proceedings. Under the updated protocol, the general position is that prosecution documents which have been read out in court should be provided unless there are legitimate interests for such documents to be withheld or redacted, for example where the interests of justice or the interests of victims, witnesses or families are deemed to prevail. This includes images/video of the defendant, scenes of crime as recorded by the police and items exhibited in court as well as transcripts of interviews read out in court. Other prosecution material which may be released includes victim and witness statements, photographs of injuries and audio and video recordings of police interviews and 999 calls. The protocol does not change the position in respect of defence material, with the media still required to contact the defence if they would like access to such material. The protocol also provides the media with another route to appeal any decision to withhold material, in addition to the option to request the release of material under Parts 5.7 to 5.12 of the Criminal Procedure Rules.

Novel privacy action

Earlier this month, Mrs Justice Eady heard the trial of Feldman v Gambling Commission, a novel privacy and confidentiality claim brought against the gambling regulator which relied on the expectation of privacy in a criminal investigation (see Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5).

The Claimants are former executives of Entain (formerly GVC Holdings), an international gambling conglomerate which owns various brands including Coral and Ladbrokes.  The claim arises from the Claimants' failed bid to take control of online casino group 888 in 2023. During the bid, the Gambling Commission (GC) expressed concerns to 888 about the Claimants' past association with Entain, in particular their potential involvement in alleged bribery in respect of Entain's Turkish operation, which was the subject of a HMRC investigation at the time. These concerns ultimately resulted in the GC commencing a licence review of 888, and in 888 terminating its discussions with the Claimants.

Evoke, 888's owner, published a statement to the stock market explaining the background to the termination.  The statement referred to the GC's concerns over the Claimants' involvement in the bribery investigation and stated that "the most basic assurances [to address] these concerns were not forthcoming". 

In their claim against the GC, the Claimants allege that the regulator breached their privacy and confidentiality by causing 888's statement to be published, which they say came about through "very considerable collaboration".  They are bringing a separate claim over a statement published by the GC in 2024 confirming 888's licence review was over because the bid was not going ahead.  The Commission denies wrongdoing, maintaining that its actions were lawful, necessary and in the public interest. It argues that no private information was disclosed and that the Claimants could have addressed concerns directly with 888.

It appears that, since issuing the claim but before the trial, the Claimants have been charged with bribery and fraud in relation to Entain's Turkish operations. It is understood that they deny the charges.

Judgment has been reserved, but should be an interesting read and will likely address novel arguments relating to the GC's responsibility for 888's statement, the relevance of the Claimants' charge being published, public interest, damage and public policy considerations.

Prison sentence over X posts

Joey Barton, the former footballer turned social media commentator, has been handed a six-month suspended prison sentence plus 200 hours of unpaid community service following his conviction for sending grossly offensive and distressing social media posts about Jeremy Vine, Lucy Ward and Eni Aluko. Barton's posts included superimposing Ward and Aluko's faces onto a photo of notorious serial killers Fred and Rose West, and suggesting that Jeremy Vine is a paedophile, including by calling him a "bike nonce".

The case has raised questions by some commentators over whether it is correct that insults on social media, even where highly offensive, meet the high threshold for criminalising speech.  Barton's conviction also raises questions for online platforms which under the Online Safety Act, are required to have proportionate systems and processes in place to remove 'illegal' content pursuant to the Online Safety Act while also complying with reciprocal duties to protect freedom of expression. 

Australia bans children from social media

Australia has introduced a world-first ban on social media accounts for children under 16, requiring platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, YouTube and X to remove millions of accounts or face fines of up to A$49.5m (£25m). The law, which came into effect on 10 December, obliges platforms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent underage users from accessing their services. The government has made clear that user self-certification will not suffice. Social media platforms must deploy age assurance measures, such as photo ID or bank account age verification.

The move has already prompted legal challenges. Reddit has filed a High Court claim arguing that, although it is complying, it should not be classified as a social media platform and that the policy raises serious concerns about privacy and freedom of expression. Critics also warn that the ban risks driving children to VPNs or unregulated platforms, undermining its effectiveness to protect children.

Internationally, the ban is being closely monitored. Denmark has announced plans to ban social media for under-15s, while Norway is considering similar measures. In the UK, recent reforms under the Online Safety Act already impose strict obligations on platforms to protect children including through age verification, but campaigners may see Australia’s ban as a precedent for further restrictions.

Ofcom: online safety round-up

Ofcom continues to be proactive in its role as the UK's online safety regulator, recently imposing a very substantial fine of £1 million against AVS Group Ltd (AVS) for failing to implement "highly effective” age assurance across its 18+ adult websites, alongside a further £50,000 penalty for failing to respond to statutory information requests. AVS was required to introduce compliant age checks within 72 hours or face daily penalties of £1,000.  

Meanwhile, Ofcom has published new guidance for in-scope service providers related to improving online safety for women and girls. The guidance identifies four key areas of online harm (online misogyny, pile-ons and online harassment, online domestic abuse; and image-based sexual abuse) and recommends nine "good practice steps".

The regulator is also currently consulting on draft industry guidance for how service providers should respond to requests from bereaved parents seeking information about their child’s use of online services before their death. The proposals emphasise transparency, timeliness and sensitivity, with measures such as clear disclosure policies, helplines and accessible complaints functions.

Bob Vylan launches defamation action against Irish national broadcaster 

On 8 December punk-rap duo Bob Vylan launched defamation proceedings in the Irish courts against Irish national broadcaster RTE, claiming that the broadcaster's allegation that the band led antisemitic chants during their performance at Glastonbury 2025 was defamatory.

The band became the subject of controversy for leading a crowd chant of "death, death to the IDF" during their performance at the festival on 28 June 2025. The chants were broadcast live on the BBC, a decision which the Director General of the BBC at the time, Tim Davie, later apologised for, calling the set "antisemitic" and "deeply disturbing". The Glastonbury organisers also condemned the chants. Bob Vylan have vehemently denied antisemitism.

Ofcom: £375,000 fine for breaking broadcasting rules 

On 9 December 2025, Ofcom imposed a £375,000 fine on religious broadcaster The Word Network after finding it repeatedly in breach of the Broadcasting Code.

The regulator’s investigations followed viewer complaints and routine monitoring of several programmes aired between July 2023 and May 2024. Ofcom concluded that the programme Stem Cell Activators made unsubstantiated claims that serious medical conditions could be treated using unlicensed products promoted during the broadcast. Similarly, multiple episodes of Peter Popoff Ministries promoted products and religious services as effective in treating serious medical conditions or alleviating financial difficulties.

Under Section 2 of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, which ensures adequate protection for audiences from harmful or offensive material, licensees must ensure that audiences are adequately protected from harm. This includes prohibitions on misleading or unsubstantiated claims about health treatments or financial remedies. Ofcom found that The Word Network failed in this obligation, exposing viewers to potentially harmful misinformation.

Ofcom indicated that the substantial fines were warranted given the "serious and in some cases, repeated and reckless" nature of the breaches.

Tommy Robinson v Nigel Farage

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson) has reportedly sent Reform UK leader Nigel Farage a pre-action letter for defamation, following comments made during a live interview on LBC radio on 7 January 2025. During the broadcast, Farage described Robinson as having “a criminal record, a list as long as your arm, violence, violence against women”, prompting Robinson to allege that the statement was false and defamatory, particularly the imputation of violence against women. Robinson has released a statement confirming he does not have any convictions for violence against women, and claiming that Farage's interview has caused him serious reputational harm.

The pre-action letter has been published by GB Politics on X.

Quote of the fortnight

"Those who hope to experience the wonders of the United States… should not have to fear that self‑censorship is a condition of entry."

Sarah McLaughlin from The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, commenting on the Trump administration's proposal to expand vetting of travellers entering the US by requiring the mandatory upload of five years of social media history.

RPC would like to wish all of our readers a very Happy Christmas and best wishes for the new year!