Take 10 - 28 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.

Law Commission publishes first report on review of contempt laws

On 18 November 2025, the Law Commission published its first report covering the recommended new framework for liability and contempt following a consultation in July 2024.

The recommended framework abolishes the current distinction between civil and criminal proceedings. It establishes four forms of contempt liability: general contempt, contempt by breach of a court order or undertaking, contempt by publication when proceedings are active, and contempt by disrupting proceedings.

"Contempt by publication when proceedings are active" is to replace strict liability contempt. The Law Commission recommends changing the point at which proceedings are considered 'active' from arrest to charge. This may allow for publication of more details about a suspect, such as their name, age, nationality and ethnicity, prior to charge. However, it is important to note that publishers could still be found guilty of general contempt for publications made prior to charge where such publication create a substantial risk of interference with the administration of justice. Most significantly, unlike current strict liability contempt laws, this new form of contempt requires proof of fault. The defendant no longer bears the reverse burden of proof, instead the applicant must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that proceedings were active or was aware of a risk that proceedings were active. These recommendations reflect the Commission's concerns that the current law interferes too heavily with publishers' Article 10 ECHR rights.

Digital Omnibus: EU resets the rulebook

The European Commission has unveiled its Digital Omnibus, a set of proposals designed to streamline and simplify the EU’s digital regulatory framework following concerns that overlapping rules on AI, data protection and cybersecurity have become fragmented and burdensome, particularly for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs). The Digital Omnibus is intended to reduce compliance costs and uncertainty, while clarifying how personal data can be processed in AI systems. Key proposals include:

• Regarding the GDPR: i) clarifying the definition of 'personal data' in relation to pseudonymisation and transfers between entities; ii) amending Article 12 to enable organisations to refuse Data Subject Access Requests (DSARs) where they are abusive or pursued for purposes other than protecting the individual’s data; and iii) extending breach notification deadlines to 96 hours.
• Regarding the AI Act: Implementation deadlines for high-risk AI systems will be linked to the availability of harmonised standards, with transition periods extending compliance dates to December 2027. Oversight of general-purpose AI models and systems embedded in very large platforms will be centralised under the AI Office, which gains powers to conduct conformity assessments and impose penalties.
• Regarding the Data Act and Cybersecurity: Existing rules on data governance and open data will be consolidated, with a single-entry point for breach and incident reporting managed by the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA). A new 'European Business Wallet' will provide secure cross-border tools for identity verification and document exchange.

UK businesses should note the parallels with the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, which introduced similar reforms to the UK GDPR, including methods to prevent abusive DSARs and new bases for processing pseudonymised data.

For further information on the potential impacts the EU's Digital Omnibus may have on your business, please visit our Autumn 2025 Snapshots article here

Hemming v Poulton & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1494: a Court of Appeal intervention on meaning

The Court of Appeal handed down judgment on 20 November 2025 in Hemming v Poulton & Ors [2025] on what is a relatively rare example of the Court of Appeal intervening in the determination of meaning in a libel claim. The claim related to two publications made in 2019: 1) a YouTube video of an interview with Sonia Poulton, a journalist (the Video), and 2) a statement titled 'Police Update' which Ms Poulton published on her website (the Update). Hemming appealed the meanings attributed to the Video and the Update. The original meanings are at [30] (the Video) and [34] (the Update).

On appeal, Lord Justice Warby substituted clarified determinations of meaning for each publication. For the Video, the meaning substituted was that "there are reasonable grounds to investigate whether John Hemming abused Esther Baker when she was a child". Whilst the judge was held to have correctly identified a Chase level 3 meaning, the meaning wording had included some irrelevant non-defamatory matter, failed to focus on what the statement meant about the claimant, and omitted the essential defamatory imputation which the Judge had earlier identified [49]. As for the Update, the Court substituted the following defamatory meanings – i) that Mr Hemming tried to stop Mr Baker exposing child abuse by members of the Establishment by taking part in applying inappropriate and excessive pressure on the police and Attorney General to charge her with breaching a reporting restriction; ii) his motivations for this were improper; and there are reasonable grounds for investigating whether those motivations include a desire to cover up his own criminal activities [60]. Warby LJ found the Judge's meaning was incorrect because she identified a meaning without having dealt with the issue of reference albeit it was recognised that this was a knock on effect of the Master's order which had not resolved the reference issue, nor did it provide for determination of the issue of reference [51,54-55].

Warby LJ restated that the natural and ordinary meaning of a publication is that which the ordinary reasonable reader would take from the publication as a whole, emphasising that the repetition rule and "bane and antidote principle" are "subsidiary" to this overarching principle and are simply "tools" to help the court decide the meaning [43]. 

Scotland's commitment to reform SLAPPs

A new report following Scotland’s consultation on SLAPPs confirms the government’s view that comprehensive and accessible legal reform is necessary and urgent enough to be pursued at the next legislative opportunity. The consultation sought responses on respondents' personal experiences of SLAPPs, their views on the existing position regarding SLAPPs in Scots law and views on potential legislative and non-legislative solutions.

Several individuals reported having personally been affected by SLAPPs, explaining that they felt intimidated by the significant legal costs posed by SLAPPs which in some instances had led to them abandoning the work which was the subject of the SLAPP. Individuals described that whilst court proceedings were threatened they were not pursued leaving individuals feeling "in a state of limbo". Others who had not directly experienced a SLAPP noted that the problem of SLAPPs was difficult to quantify because their aim is to silence and that SLAPPs were "invisible" as opposed to non-existent. The report concludes that most of the respondents saw SLAPPs as having a chilling effect on free speech, and were being used as a tool to stifle publication of matters in the public interest. The government’s commitment to reform is therefore a positive sign, and a mirroring of s.194 and s.195 ECCTA 2023 to enable a uniform approach to tackling SLAPPs across the British Isles would be a sensible first step.

High Court awards £70,000 in libel damages over software site publications

On 20 November 2025, Mrs Justice Collins Rice handed down judgment in Garrett v Schestowitz and Schestowitz [2025] EWHC 3063 (KB), awarding the Claimant £70,000 in damages for libel and granting injunctive relief against two software news websites, Techrights and Tuxmachines, restraining continued publication and ordering a summary of the judgment to be published pursuant to section 12 of the Defamation Act 2013.

Dr Matthew Garrett, a software engineer and free software activist, brought proceedings over 24 publications alleging criminality, harassment and drug use. The Defendant website operators' defences of truth, honest opinion and public interest were dismissed. Collins Rice J found that the allegations amounted to Chase Level 1 assertions of fact [27] and that the ordinary reasonable reader would have understood the publications as straightforward allegations of criminality, including cybercrime, blackmail and drug use [25]. Applying the Supreme Court’s guidance in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd, Collins Rice J recognised the grave nature of the allegations and that the publications constituted a mass publication to those with which Garrett's UK reputation was materially engaged, therefore causing Garrett serious reputational harm [53]. The Court held that the Defendants had not proven the statements to be true [71], and that the statements did not pursue a matter of public interest, but were made to attack Garrett [79]. In awarding judgment in Garrett's favour, the Court described the publications as a campaign of “grossly defamatory tendency” [28] and condemned them as an “unsubstantiated character assassination” [119].

Munim v Rahman & Ors – Steyn J grants summary disposal

On 19 November, Mrs Justice Steyn granted an application for summary disposal of a libel claim pursuant to section 8 of the Defamation Act 1996.

The claim arose from a series of Facebook posts published by the defendant in May 2018 accusing the claimant, a business owner, of stealing his business, business ideas and intellectual property. The accusations followed wider litigation between the parties concerning copyright and shareholder disputes, both of which had already been tried and resolved. 

Although summary disposal exists as a statutory route, it has been rarely used in recent years.  It can be used where no defence has a realistic prospect of success and where there is no other reason why the claim should proceed to trial (s.8(3) Defamation Act 1996). Whilst the test applied under s.8(3) is essentially the same for that as for summary judgment, the relief is different. For instance, a court can make declarations of falsity, order a defendant to publish an apology, and damages are capped at £10,000.

Steyn J held the exceptional circumstances were met in this case as the defendant had ceased engagement with proceedings, and his pleaded defences of truth, honest opinion, and public interest were untenable. The truth defence was “hopeless” given the binding factual findings from the earlier litigation which established that the intellectual property and investment decisions complained of were lawful and the property was not stolen [52-55]. The honest opinion defence failed because the posts were statements of fact, not opinion and an honest person aware of the facts surrounding the defendant's sale of his shares and the development of the ARTA logo, as the defendant had been aware, could not have held the opinion that the claimant was a "dishonest exploitative crook" given that the only bases for that allegation was known to be false [62]. The public-interest defence was held to have no real prospect of success as the defendant did not reasonably believe he was publishing statements which were in the public interest. This was because the defendant had provided no evidence to prove that he had undertaken the relevant enquiries and checks prior to publication to verify the allegations, and (despite the burden not being on the claimant to prove this) the claimant had provided evidence showing that the defendant had not sought to verify any of the allegations with him prior to publication [71].

The Court granted summary relief in favour of the claimant in the form of a declaration of falsity, an order to publish a correction and apology, the maximum amount of damages (£10,000) and an injunction. Whilst ordering an apology and correction was seen to potentially interfere with the defendant's Article 10 rights, it was considered justified here to repair and vindicate the claimant’s reputation, particularly given the credibility lent to the original allegations and their publication to thousands within the claimant’s business community [83].

Campaigners call for inquiry into the ICO

In an open letter to Dame Chi Onwurah, the chair of the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, a coalition of 73 civil-liberties groups, academics and legal experts have urged Parliament to launch an inquiry into the ICO, citing concerns that the regulator has undergone a serious “collapse in enforcement activity" following its refusal to formally investigate the Ministry of Defence after the 2022 Afghan data breach which compromised the personal data of nearly 19,000 Afghans who worked with British forces. The letter criticises the ICO’s new “Public Sector Approach” (which prioritises "naming and shaming" public organisations over legally binding sanctions) and how, despite a number of egregious data breaches recently, this has resulted only in ineffective reprimands and reduced penalties. Signatories say that lack of enforcement may be encouraging lax data-handling practices in organisations in the view that the ICO will not pursue any complaints made. The letter calls for a parliamentary inquiry to restore accountability and ensure the ICO fulfils its statutory duty to protect individuals’ data rights. The ICO has responded that it will discuss its approach thus far at its "next regular engagement" and will account for its work when speaking to and appearing before the DSIT select committee.  

Ofcom fines nudification site £50,000 and launches wider crackdown

Ofcom has fined Itai Tech Ltd, the operator of the nudification site Undress.cc, £50,000 for failing to implement adequateage assurance measures to prevent children from accessing pornographic content. The regulator also levied an additional £5,000 penalty on the company for failing to comply with a statutory information request. It has also issued two preliminary decisions against Kick Online Entertainment S.A. and 8579 LLC for similar failures, to which the two companies are invited to respond. This enforcement action forms part of Ofcom’s wider programme under the Online Safety Act, which requires pornography sites to deploy robust age verification or estimation tools.

Separately, Ofcom has announced new investigations into five providers who collectively offer 20 adult sites. Investigation into these companies was driven by their potential risk of harm based on user numbers and traffic growth since the age-check rules came into force in summer 2025. Ofcom has also expanded ongoing probes into other providers, bringing the total number of sites and apps under investigation to 76.

The regulator’s approach reflects its commitment to tackling non-compliance across the sector. Providers are required not only to implement effective age checks but also to respond accurately and promptly to Ofcom’s statutory requests for information. Failure to do so can result in significant financial penalties, as demonstrated in this case. Organisations operating in the online content space should take note to review their compliance frameworks carefully, particularly around age assurance and regulatory reporting. 

Investigation launched by US broadcast regulator over BBC Trump speech edit

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced on 20 November 2025 that it would be launching an investigation to determine whether a BBC Panorama episode titled "Trump: A Second Chance?" had been broadcast in the United States. The Panorama episode has been at the centre of controversy following allegations that it contained an edited version of a speech made by President Donald Trump on 6 January 2021, which allegedly suggested that President Trump had directly called for the 6 January Capitol riots (see our previous Take 10 article on the threatened defamation claim by President Trump here).

The Chair of the FCC, Brendan Carr, wrote to the BBC and two US broadcasters, PBS and NPR, on 19 November to determine if the broadcast had been made available in the US and if so, whether it had broken FCC rules. The FCC requires broadcasters to operate in the public interest, including prohibiting news distortion and broadcast hoax. The BBC has since apologised to President Trump for the editing of the speech, admitting that it gave the "mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for action", but is defending his threatened defamation claim over the broadcast.

Chief Constable of Lancashire apologises in Court over TikTok video

On 21 November 2025, the Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary publicly apologised in the High Court to Mr Ali Ahmed after broadcasting a TikTok video which wrongly appeared to link him to criminal behaviour.

The video, posted on the Constabulary’s official TikTok account on 3 November 2023, contained Mr Ahmed’s private information and was juxtaposed with footage of another man - whose face was obscured - throwing a firework at a police car. The post was accompanied by the lyrics from Rihanna’s song Take a Bow saying “you look so dumb right now”, creating the false impression that Mr Ahmed was the individual involved in the incident.

In Court, the Constabulary admitted that the defamatory allegations against Mr Ahmed were untrue and that use of Mr Ahmed’s image amounted to misuse of his private information. The Chief Constable accepted that the broadcast was misleading and apologised for the damage caused to his reputation and any distress. She has agreed to pay "substantial" damages to him along with his legal costs, to destroy the TikTok post and to publish an apology on TikTok itself. 

 Quote of the fortnight

"Those who are protected from abusive legal threats are better able to speak out and inform others, leading everyone in Scotland to be better aware of the world around them. To protect against SLAPPs is to protect democracy."

Nik Williams, Scottish Anti-SLAPP Working Group convener

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/scottish-government-commits-to-anti-slapp-law