Skip to main content

Search results

6 results ordered by

Perspective - Blog

Ofcom's 'Roadmap to Regulation' underway with its consultation on illegal harms duties under the Online Safety Act

Published on 12 Jan 2024. By Jessica Kingsbury, Associate

In November, Ofcom, as new online safety regulator, published the first of four major consultations under the Online Safety Act ("OSA"), which sets out its proposals for how "user-to-user" ("U2U") services (essentially any online website or app that allows users to interact with each other) and online search services (i.e. Google, Bing and similar) should approach their illegal content duties under the new legislation. The consultation provides guidance in a number of areas including governance, content moderation, reporting and complaints mechanisms, terms of service, supporting child users, and user empowerment.

Read more
Perspective - Blog

The Online Safety Bill is set to become law

Published on 21 Sep 2023. By Rupert Cowper-Coles , Partner, Media and Nadia Tymkiw, Senior Associate and Jessica Kingsbury, Associate

The Online Safety Bill will shortly become law in the UK as soon as it receives Royal Assent. The legislation will introduce a new regulatory regime for online platforms and search engines which target the UK, imposing wide-ranging obligations on in-scope services with serious consequences for non-compliance.

Read more
Perspective - Blog

The Online Safety Bill and the risk of unintended consequences

Published on 31 Mar 2023. By Nadia Tymkiw, Senior Associate

The Online Safety Bill was reintroduced to Parliament late last year, with new amendments receiving scrutiny in the House of Commons in December, before the bill entered the House of Lords in January. The bill continues to evolve, most notably with the government removing the requirement for user-to-user platforms and search engines to prevent adult users from encountering "legal but harmful" content, instead requiring online platforms to provide users with enhanced content controls (i.e., choice as to what content is seen), and imposing further obligations around transparency and enforcement of online platforms' terms and conditions. "Legal but harmful" obligations remain in place for under 18s. The government has recently agreed to introduce criminal sanctions for senior managers who fail to take proportionate measures to protect children from potentially harmful content.

Read more
Perspective - Blog

The right to know who has your personal data (RW v Österreichische Post AG (C-154/21))

Published on 07 Feb 2023. By Alisha Jackson, Paralegal and Alex Pollock, Associate

In RW v Österreichische Post AG (C-154/21), the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") has provided clarification on the right of access to personal data and information relating to the processing of such data under Article 15(1) of the GDPR.

Read more
Perspective - Blog

The Model Anti-SLAPP Law: an overview

Published on 25 Nov 2022. By Mafruhdha Miah, Senior Associate

Following the Government's response to the SLAPP consultation in the summer, the UK Anti-SLAPP coalition (a working group that includes English PEN, the Foreign Policy Centre and Index on Censorship, "the Coalition") has this week published a model Anti-SLAPP law, which has been endorsed by a collection of free speech and anti-corruption organisations, journalists, editors and lawyers.

Read more
Perspective - Blog

Interim injunctions and competing public interests (Attorney General v BBC)

Published on 22 Apr 2022. By Mafruhdha Miah, Senior Associate

In Her Majesty's Attorney General for England and Wales v British Broadcasting Corporation [2022] EWHC 826 (QB), an interim injunction has been granted in favour of the Attorney General (AG) to restrain the BBC from broadcasting the identity and image of an alleged covert human intelligence source for MI5 (known only as ‘X’) who is accused of being abusive to two former partners and using his position with MI5 to terrorise and control one of the women. The injunction was granted on the basis that, while it "represented a very significant interference with the right of the BBC to freedom of expression and the correlative right of the public to receive the information the BBC wishes to publish" [23], such a measure was necessary in order to prevent a real and immediate risk to X’s life or safety, as well as the potential wider impact of publication on national security.

Read more