Take 10: 26 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."

UK Government announces social media ban for under-16s

On 15 June 2026, the government announced a social media ban for under-16s. The ban follows the government's consultation on children's online safety, which received more than 116,000 responses. Whilst there is no definitive list of banned sites at this stage, the government has said that its ban will cover user-to-user platforms "whose purpose is to enable social interaction and which allows users to post material". Snapchat, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X will fall within this ban whilst private messaging apps, such as WhatsApp and Signal, will not.

The first set of regulations are expected to be laid out by the end of year, to give tech companies and parents time to prepare before the changes come into force by Spring 2027. Ofcom has also been asked to conduct a rapid study to identify the most effective method of age verification, and technology secretary Liz Kendall has told the BBC that the government will provide further details on enforcement in July. Accompanying the ban will be a block on functions such as livestreaming and communication with strangers for 16-17 year olds, which will apply to a wider range of online services, including gaming sites. Further measures for this age-group are also expected, including overnight curfews and limits on 'infinite scrolling'.

Doniya Soni-Clark, associate director of public affairs for Tech UK, says that although the industry is supportive of the aims behind the ban, caution over its efficacy remains. She said to Radio 4's World at One that "a ban is a blunt instrument, and an ineffective tool for addressing some of the issues that parents and families are raising today".

Parallel anti-SLAPP private members' bills introduced in the Lords and Commons

On 16 and 17 June 2026, two parallel private members' bills were introduced in the Lords and Commons proposing legislation that, if enacted, would grant the courts greater powers to dismiss Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation ("SLAPPs") at an early stage. The co-ordinated bills are further reaching than the current provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) which are limited to publications concerning economic crime. Details of Sir John Wittingdale’s Bill are yet to be published but the details of Baroness Stowell’s Bill have been published. 

Baroness Stowell's bill would allow a defendant to a claim "relating to any publication, statement or activity carried out in the right to free expression" to apply for early determination if the application concerns a matter of public interest (clause 1(1)). If an application is made, the burden would shift to the claimant to prove that their claim is more likely than not to succeed (clause 1(2)). However, the bill would prevent dismissal where the harm suffered (or likely to be suffered) is sufficiently serious that the public interest in allowing the claim to proceed outweighs the public interest in dismissing it before trial (clause 1(3)). If successful, the defendant would be awarded indemnity costs unless deemed inappropriate (clause 2(1)). If the claimant successfully resists the application for early determination, they will not be entitled to recover their costs unless deemed just and appropriate (clause 2(2)). The bill also proposes additional costs-related measures, including a requirement for claimants to provide security for costs in connection with the early determination application and potentially for the substantive claim.

The Bills have been welcomed by anti-SLAPP organisations and by the media. Susan Coughtrie,  Co-Chair of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, commented that " Left unaddressed, SLAPPs allow bad faith actors to control and restrict the information available to the public, impacting our knowledge of the world around us. As a result, protections, such as those announced this week, not only protect the person speaking out but the public interest information that sustains democracy. We welcome both Private Members’ Bills and encourage all parliamentarians to get behind them.”

Government launches Green paper on a new strategic direction for UK media

On 23 June 2026, the government launched a consultation on a new strategic direction for UK media. The green paper, titled "‘Watch this space: a new strategic direction for UK media", proposes legislating to require social platforms to prioritise content from trustworthy news sources, such as public service media and national and local news outlets (chapter 2.1). The consultation is open until 31 August 2026, and stakeholders are invited to provide their input on categorisation of "trustworthy news sources" before then, with the paper suggesting as the starting point the definition of a "recognised news publisher" under section 56 of the Online Safety Act 2023 (chapter 2.2). Other proposals include imposing a duty on public service media (including the BBC and Channel 4) to develop and report on public media literacy, so that people are able to better critically assess information online (chapter 2.3).

The move was cautiously welcomed by media organisations and journalists. Laura Davison, NUJ general secretary, said “The government’s focus on improving access to trusted news and promoting public service media is welcome. We will be scrutinising the finer details of these proposals in consultation with our members and look forward to engaging constructively with DCMS". 

UK organisations must have a process for handling data protection complaints

On 19 June 2026, new provisions in section 164A of the Data Protection Act 2018, inserted by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA), came into force, requiring all data controllers to have an established process for dealing with data protection complaints. This applies to all complaints where an individual considers that an organisation has infringed data protection legislation through handling their personal information, such as the handling of a Subject Access Request or how an organisation has collected and stored their personal information. The effect of the provisions is that an individual is required to first lodge a complaint via the business' internal procedure before escalating the complaint to the ICO.

The ICO guidance sets out key practical steps organisations must take to comply with the provisions. In short, organisations must provide a method for individuals to make a complaint. There is no requirement to set up a separate tool and the ICO does not specify a particular method that must be adopted. Individuals are eligible to complain via any available method, including via social media channels. A complaint cannot be ignored and must be acknowledged within 30 days of receipt (regardless of whether the complaint is lodged on a weekend or public holiday). If the last day falls on a weekend or public holiday, you have until the next working day. Section 164A requires an investigation to take place without undue delay. This obligation starts to run as soon as a complaint is received, and organisations must inform the complainant of the outcome. 

Ofcom dismiss complaint from Restore during Makerfield by-election

Ofcom's Election Committee has dismissed a complaint from the Restore Britain Party against the BBC. The party alleged that the BBC's exclusion of its representative, Rebecca Shepherd, from the BBC Question Time Makerfield By-Election Special breached obligations of due impartiality and due weight under the Ofcom Broadcasting Code. It argued that an election poll, which placed the party third with 7% support, indicated that the BBC should have included them in the programme.

In dismissing the complaint, the Committee noted that "due impartiality" does not mean an equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument has to be represented. Similarly, "due weight" is a flexible concept and it is an editorial decision for the broadcaster as to what constitutes an appropriate level of coverage to be given to parties and candidates [3.5-3.7]. It also noted that Ofcom's guidelines place greater weight on actual political party performance than opinion poll data.  It was appropriate to place less weight on a single poll than on the results of past elections and seats won in previous general elections and local council elections [3.14].

Ofcom therefore found that the BBC's approach to considering the evidence of electoral support was reasonable [3.16] and that it had made a 'reasonable editorial decision' not to include Restore Britain's candidate in the programme [3.17-3.26]. 

Ofcom publishes crisis guidance and warns of legal consequences if platforms are used to fuel violence

On 9 June 2026 Ofcom published a 70-page "Crisis Response Protocol" setting out new measures to be included in its Illegal Content and Children's Safety Codes and Practice. The Codes of Practice set out recommended measures for service providers to adopt to comply with their duties under the Online Safety Act 2023. A crisis is defined as an “extraordinary situation in which there is a serious threat to public safety in the United Kingdom” which is highly likely to have resulted from users being exposed to a significant increase in relevant content. One such example is the violent protests which have been taking place in Belfast since the 9 June. In response to the Belfast riots, Ofcom warned service providers of the possible legal consequences if their platforms are used to stir up and fuel violence during a period of crisis.

Ofcom advises service providers to maintain a written internal protocol (covering crisis indicators and systems for monitoring and review) and to set up a cross‑functional crisis response team with systems in place to mitigate surges in relevant content. Service providers should also have a dedicated communication channel with local law enforcement through which officers can contact them about crisis-related issues. Ofcom expects to publish further decisions in Autumn later this year relating to online safety following its June 2025 Additional Safety Measures Consultation. Ofcom chose to accelerate the publication of their crisis response measures given the risks to the public during these periods. 

Graham Norton succeeds in US application for discovery in support of English proceedings

On 12 June 2026, the California District Court allowed an application by TV presenter Graham Norton under Section 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code (“Section 1782”), which permits the US court to order discovery in aid of a foreign proceeding where certain criteria are met. The decision requires Meta to provide identifying information and access logs related to a Facebook account holder who posted deepfake content about Norton, including attributions of offensive and racist views and conduct. Norton's application indicated that he requires the information in order to commence proceedings in England in harassment and defamation against the person(s) responsible for the account.

In granting the application, the California court considered that factors supporting the application included that Norton required the information to issue proceedings in England and Wales himself [p.3 ll. 21 – 25] and that the requests were narrowly drafted and not unduly burdensome [p.4 l.24]. Meta has 14 days from service of the order to provide the requested information or oppose the order [p.5 ll.8 – 11].  

BBC secures partial victory in challenging Afghanistan Inquiry reporting restrictions

The BBC has succeeded in challenging certain reporting restrictions in the reporting of the Afghanistan Inquiry. The Chair's decision permits the media to refer openly to the Special Air Service (SAS) and Special Boat Service (SBS) in reporting on proceedings concerning alleged unlawful killings by UK Special Forces in Afghanistan.

The BBC argued that continued restrictions preventing reference to specific UK Special Forces regiments harmed accurate reporting and risked undermining public understanding of the Inquiry’s work [22–25]. In determining that the reporting restrictions were no longer in the public interest, the Chair noted the exceptional circumstances of the inquiry, being a public inquiry tasked with investigating allegations of exceptional gravity and public concern [109]. Ongoing reporting restrictions would undermine the ability of the Inquiry to assuage public concern and would limit public understanding of the serious issues raised by the inquiry [105-116]

However, in a separate ruling handed down the same day, the Chair dismissed the BBC's application to lift anonymity orders protecting the identities of two senior military officers. The Chair held that national security and safety concerns continued to justify anonymity protections [116].

High Court dismisses strike out application in Good Law Project Ltd v Reform Party Ltd

Mr Justice Murray handed down judgment on 19 June 2026 dismissing Reform's application to strike out a representative data protection claim brought by the Good Law Project (GLP) on behalf of a group of 51 individuals under Article 80 UK GDPR. GLP claim that Reform failed to respond to data subject access requests (DSARs) sent by the 51 individuals on time and that the responses were substantively deficient [6].

Reform argued that the claim should be struck out on the basis that GLP does not have standing to bring a representative action and/or that the claim is an abuse of process. Reform argued that that there was "nothing" in the Claimant's Articles of Association that demonstrates that it satisfies the requirements to act as a representative body under s 187(3) and s 187(4) of the Data Protection Act 2018 [62]. Murray J disagreed and explained that the GLP had a reasonable basis for arguing at trial that each of the conditions are met [71-83].

Murray J swiftly disposed of remaining issues. Notably, he explained that the "fact that GLP has an underlying motive to bring the claim that is "political", if true, does not mean that this claim is an abuse of process". To the extent that the Claimant choses to portray the claim to the general public (for example, via its website) "is not relevant to whether this claim, properly analysed, is an abuse of process or is vexatious" [93]. 

Woman acquitted from charges under Communications Act 2003 in relation to emails sent about conflict in Gaza

On 15 June 2026, the Chief Magistrate in Brighton acquitted a woman ("CK") charged with an offence under s 127(2)(C) and (3) under the Communications Act 2003 in relation to emails sent to senior politicians about the actions of the Israeli Government in Gaza. CK was charged with persistently using a public electronic communications network for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another.

In CK's skeleton argument (kindly provided to RPC by her counsel, Rabah Kherbane), she argued that her emails were neither persistent, nor was their purpose to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety. CK further argued that the prosecution was a misuse of the statute, which, according to Scottow v CPS [2021] 1 Cr. App. R. 13, is not aimed at "communication of information or ideas which offended the recipient, or even the communication of messages which had offence as a purpose” and is certainly not a method by which politicians are to be protected from scrutiny of their policy decisions. Finally, CK argued that prosecution was an unlawful interference with her rights under Article 10(1) ECHR, noting that, when people are expressing themselves in a political context, the law expects those who receive the communications to have a thicker skin than those who are ordinary citizens.

The Chief Magistrate refused the prosecution's application to amend the charge to rely on further emails, and dismissed the case against CK.

Quote of the fortnight

“The attack on free speech represented by SLAPPs is a stain on our legal system and a threat to a functioning democracy. For too long British courts have been used to hush-up unethical behaviour and corporate abuses. While some protection against SLAPPs was introduced in the last Parliament it only covers economic crime and it is still too costly for those on the receiving end of them to fight back ...”

Baroness Stowell on her anti-SLAPP bill.

Brought to you by RPC's Media team