Take 10 - 23 January 2026

Welcome back to RPC's Media and Communications law update. As we return from the summer break, we recap on the key media judgments and developments over the last few months.

Court refuses to silence negative customer reviews

In a win for consumer experience transparency, Deputy High Court Judge Guy Vassall-Adams KC refused applications for interim injunctions brought by CF&L Limited and iSpy Group. The claimants had sought to remove critical Trustpilot and Google reviews posted by Kieran Fraser, an unhappy customer, who disputed a cancelled water cooler contract.  The claimants argued libel, harassment, and misuse of private information in relation to the reviews and communications sent by Mr Fraser and his associated companies.

In applying the longstanding principle in Bonnard v Perryman, the court found the Defendant's truth and honest opinion defences were not "bound to fail" and as such an interim libel injunction was not awarded. The court further stressed the public interest in consumer reviews and maintaining transparency.

The Court also held that the corporate entities could not prove, and did not plead, serious financial loss pursuant to section 1(2) of the Defamation Act 2013.

The claimants' attempt to obtain an injunction on the basis of harassment also failed. The Court found that rude emails, a single phone call, and a brief reference to health issues was "not even close" to constituting oppressive and unacceptable behaviour required to make out a claim in harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Finally, an injunction on the basis misuse of private information was also refused. The health condition information mentioned in one of the contentious reviews did not name the afflicted individual and was promptly amended during the hearing.  The court therefore rejected the Claimants' argument that there was a real risk of repetition. 

EctHR rules Slovenian court restricted magazine's freedom of expression

On 13 January 2026, the European Court of Human right (ECtHR) ruled that Slovenia's Constitutional Court unlawfully restricted a magazine publisher's freedom of expression by upholding a civil claim in favour of a politician (in the case of Mladina D.D. Ljubljana v Slovenia (No. 2)). The case concerned a satirical magazine that published a provocative picture caption likening the politician to Joseph Goebbels by placing a family photograph of the Nazi officer next to a photograph of the politician and his own family including his young children.

The ECtHR identified several flaws when assessing the Slovenian court's reasoning including: failing to consider the images in a wider political context of commentary and satire especially where the publication was clearly a political parody aimed at readers who would recognise its exaggerated and humorous tone; the fact that the comparison was not made in a vacuum as the politician had previously involved his children in political events which mirrors Goebbels' own political tactics; the disproportionate weight given to the emotional effect of the images; incorrectly relying on alleged harm to the politician's wife and children even though they were not party to the proceedings and had been compensated separately; and the difference in impact between print media and broadcast media with the former having less of an immediate and powerful impact on readers.

Balancing the competing rights, the ECtHR concluded that any harm to the politician's reputation was minor and did not outweigh the public interest in robust political expression. The interference with the publisher's Article 10 rights was unjustified.

SDT conviction against Nadhim Zahawi's lawyer is overturned

In Hurst v Solicitors Regulation Authority, the High Court overturned a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) decision that had fined Osborne Clarke partner Ashley Hurst £50,000 for an email sent on behalf of former chancellor Nadhim Zahawi to tax campaigner Dan Neidle. The SDT had found that the email, marked “confidential and without prejudice”, was improperly deployed to deter publication rather than to pursue settlement.

In overturning the decision, Mrs Justice Collins Rice held the SDT had failed to consider whether Hurst was arguably entitled to label the email confidential or without-prejudice.  Mrs Justice Collins Rice found that the tribunal’s reasoning was flawed and insufficiently rigorous, particularly given the seriousness of findings of lack of integrity and bad faith, and raised particular concerns with the 'vehemence and disparagement' with which the SDT expressed its conclusions.

Harassment by publication injunction granted

Mrs Justice Steyn’s judgment in Optosafe Ltd & Ors v Robertson (Rev1) [2026] EWHC 12 (KB) is a relatively unusual instance of an injunction being granted for harassment by publication.

The defendant, a former senior employee of the First Claimant, engaged in a sustained campaign of hostile online activity, primarily through LinkedIn. His posts included caricatures, allegations of “highly illegal fraud”, contained vulgar assertions and personalised attacks on senior figures within the claimant companies, and were largely abusive. As in all harassment by publication cases, the Claimants faced a high bar to overcome the Defendant's Article 10 rights of freedom of expression.  In most instances, the Court is cautious to avoid adversely affecting a defendant's Article 10 rights and circumventing the safeguards of defamation cases.  However, the court concluded this was an exceptional case where an injunction was justified. 

Steyn J found the 80 posts over a five month period amounted to a deliberate and oppressive course of conduct, rejecting the defendant’s attempts to characterise the posts as benign, instead finding that they were aggressive, threatening, and designed to cause distress and anxiety.

Harassment convictions for targeting a journalist coincide with new national safety measures

Three members of the Lighthouse group were convicted at Stratford Magistrates' Court for harassing BBC journalist Catrin Nye, following the broadcaster’s 'A Very British Cult' investigation. The men repeatedly appeared outside Nye’s home, after hiring a private investigator to locate her address, and delivered items including a Bible and letters while filming themselves. Although their earlier protests outside the BBC were lawful, the judge found the visits to her home were “intimidatory” and “retaliatory”, crossing the line into criminal harassment.

Convictions of this kind remain notably rare, despite journalists increasingly reporting threats, doorstep intimidation, and online abuse.

Just months earlier, the Government and NPCC announced that every UK police force now has a dedicated Journalist Safety Liaison Officer (JSLO). These officers act as single points of contact for reporters facing threats, ensuring incidents are recorded consistently and that forces understand the specific risks journalists face, particularly when reporting on protests, extremist groups, or sensitive investigations.

For media organisations and publishers, the developments point in two directions. First, the Lighthouse convictions demonstrate that targeted harassment of journalists, especially at their homes, will attract criminal sanctions. Second, the JSLO network signals a shift towards more structured, proactive policing of threats against reporters, which may lead to more consistent charging decisions and improved protection for staff and freelancers.  This builds on the guidance commissioned by the DCMS and produced by the Media Lawyers' Association for journalists on 'Combatting Online Harassment and Abuse'

High Court grants anonymity and interim non disclosure order against hacker of infidelity website

Mr Justice Sheldon has granted wide‑ranging interim relief in HCE v UEH & Anor [2026] EWHC 33 (KB), a case arising from an alleged hack of a dating platform aimed at facilitating discreet extra‑marital affairs. The judgment is a reminder of the Court’s willingness to intervene swiftly where confidential user data is at risk of exposure, an issue of growing relevance for media organisations, platforms, and any client handling sensitive personal information.

The First Defendant, a self‑declared internet hacker, admitted accessing and exfiltrating a substantial volume of user data without authorisation. The Court found it “strongly arguable” that the Defendants’ conduct amounted to a breach of confidence, noting that the dataset included highly sensitive information such as names, sexual preferences, private messages, and photographs. Sheldon J also held that the Defendant’s correspondence, referring to potential ICO fines unless the matter was “resolved amicably”, gave rise to an arguable inference of blackmail.

The Court granted an interim non‑disclosure order, including delivery up or destruction of the data, finding that damages would be inadequate given the sensitivity and commercial value of the information. Importantly, Sheldon J rejected arguments that Article 10 was engaged, as the Defendant had not indicated any intention to publish the material.

Anonymity was granted to both parties to protect users’ Article 8 rights, given the risk that naming the Claimant could indirectly reveal members’ identities through credit‑card descriptors.

This judgment emphasises the importance of rapid action following a data breach, the availability of urgent relief in the Media and Communications List, and the Court’s readiness to protect confidential digital information from misuse or leverage.

"Boob God" surgeon loses battle against former patient over interim injunction

Ofcom After suffering from serious post-operative complications including sepsis and necrosis, Katy Morgan made criticisms of her plastic surgeon (Dr Riccardo Frati) on social media, which the doctor argued breached a Non-Disclosure Agreement. In exchange for a full refund, the NDA prohibited Ms Morgan from publicly criticising the surgeon or providing information about him to regulatory bodies such as the General Medical Council. Ms Morgan argued that she had no memory of signing the NDA, that she was heavily medicated at the time it was signed, and that she was not given an opportunity to seek legal counsel. At a hearing in 2023, Dr Frati obtained an interim injunction against Ms Morgan following which Ms Morgan teamed up with the Free Speech Union to lift the injunction. At a hearing last week at the Manchester Civil Justice Centre, the injunction was overturned after the court ruled there were "compelling" arguments that the NDA may be unlawful and was rather the product of an imbalance of power, a situation further highlighted by the fact that Ms Morgan was legally unrepresented unlike Dr Frati. The court also emphasised the importance of the public interest in allowing patients to speak about their medical treatment experience especially where allegations of harm and professional misconduct are concerned. The court ordered Dr Frati to pay costs and a hearing scheduled for 9 February 2026 will determine whether the alleged breach of the NDA will proceed to trial. 

The decision confirms NDAs cannot lawfully prevent individuals from reporting concerns to regulators and shield healthcare professionals from public/regulatory scrutiny, nor can they be used to suppress legitimate criticism where consent is arguably vitiated by incapacity, lack of legal advice or undue influence.

IPSO launches public consultation to review press regulation 

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has launched its most recent consultation to review its press regulations. The consultation takes place every 3 years and looks at ways to improve the Editors' Code of Practice, the framework for press regulation subscribed to by the majority of newspapers, magazines and news websites in the UK. The Code covers issues such as accuracy, harassment, privacy, and treatment of confidential sources.

The Editors' Code of Practice Committee has invited feedback from journalists, editors and the general public on how the Code can be improved to strengthen press regulation and improve journalistic standards. Submissions can be made via email to codereview2026@gmail.com on or before 10 April 2026. Submissions are generally published on the Committee's website along with the name of the author, although anonymity and confidentiality for submissions can be requested.

Ofcom weighs blocking X over Grok 'nudification' concerns 

The regulatory spotlight has intensified on X after reports that its AI chatbot, Grok, could be used to generate intimate deepfake images by digitally undressing individuals without their consent. Ofcom has confirmed that it is “urgently” assessing whether X is complying with its duties under the Online Safety Act, with the Technology Secretary, Liz Kendall, signalling that she would support the regulator if it chose to block access to the platform in the UK. Kendall described the creation of such imagery as “despicable and abhorrent” and emphasised that platforms must take “swift action” to prevent the misuse of generative AI tools.

X has since restricted Grok’s image‑generation to prevent it from editing photos of real people to remove clothing. Elon Musk has publicly criticised the UK government’s stance, suggesting that officials “want any excuse for censorship” and questioning why other AI platforms have not faced similar scrutiny. Critics of the government’s approach argue that blocking X would raise significant free‑speech concerns and could set a precedent for disproportionate regulatory intervention.

Indonesia has already blocked access to Grok entirely, citing the “serious violation of human rights, dignity, and security” posed by non‑consensual sexual deepfakes.

The Online Safety Act’s enforcement powers, including service‑blocking and fines of up to 10% of global turnover, are no longer purely theoretical. Platforms deploying generative tools should expect heightened scrutiny, faster regulatory timetables, and increased risk where intimate imagery or user safety is concerned, particularly to users under 18.

UK considers banning under-16s from social media 

The UK government announced on 19 January 2026 that it would be launching a consultation to consider whether it should follow in the footsteps of Australia, the first country in the world to ban social media for under-16s which it did in December 2025.

The consultation focuses more widely on the impact of social media use by children, and how regulating access to the internet could promote online safety and protect the wellbeing of young people. Aside from an outright ban, other measures to be considered include restrictions on addictive features such as 'infinite scrolling', better age checks, and the power for educational regulator Ofsted to check phone policies are being properly policed when carrying out school inspections.

Technology secretary Liz Kendall has made clear that the consultation aims to build on the measures already introduced by the Online Safety Act, and that the Act "[was] never meant to be the end point". The consultation invites views from parents, young people, and the general public.

The reception to the announcement has been divided, with some commentators pleased to see tougher action being taken to protect children from harm online, whilst others have expressed concerns that vulnerable children who may struggle to socialise in school need access to social media to find a community. Some have also raised concerns that a ban on social media may instead drive children to other areas of the internet, which could be less regulated and more harmful than the large social media platforms. The government expects to respond to the consultation in summer 2026.

You can read our previous Take 10 article about the Australian ban here. 

Quote of the fortnight

"In general terms, it is much easier to defend a libel claim on the basis of honest opinion than it is to defend a claim with truth. There is a strong public interest in people being able to criticise the services of companies in consumer reviews. Put simply, there are good reasons why it is hard for companies to injunct consumers who leave bad reviews."

Deputy High Court Judge Guy Vassall-Adams KC at paragraph 31 in CF&L Limited & Anor v Fraser & Ors [2025]