The UK has relatively recently introduced data privacy legislation (Data Protection Act 2018).D.P.A.”) and the UK GDPR (“GDPR”)) has given rise to a number of claims regarding the requirement for data controllers to ensure that the personal data they hold is accurate and up-to-date. Allegations have been raised that the data subject’s personal data is not retained, is unlawfully processed, and that the data subject’s reputation is harmed upon publication, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
Such a claim, 21cent This is the phenomenon of the century, reflecting the exponential growth in the amount and value of personal data in the digital age. However, many recent high-profile claims highlight the evolution of such claims and their centuries-old roots.
Scandarum Magnatum
In 1275 the following law was enacted: scandal magnatum It made it a criminal offense to publish defamatory speeches or writings against “great figures in the field.” From this seed came defamation law, which is far from an independent tort.
Most recently, the UK’s first privacy law was enacted in 2014.th However, it was not until the 1990s that the Human Rights Act introduced (or reintroduced) into British law the concept of a right to respect for an individual’s private, family life, home and correspondence. This led to the creation of the tort of misuse of personal information, following a judgment handed down in his next decade. Campbell v. Miller Group Newspapers [2004] UKHL 22.
Two ongoing high-profile cases involving individuals in the public eye highlight the further evolution of the law and the growing role of 21 in this area.cent-A century of data protection law for parties seeking to protect their reputations from damaging statements published about them.
Noel Anthony Clarke v Guardian News & Media Limited
In April 2021, The Guardian newspaper said:Harassment, nude auditions and the BAFTA’s top honor” Clark was accused of sexual misconduct, harassment, and bullying from 2004 to 2019. The article reported that Clark denied the allegations.
This article was published following the announcement that BAFTA would be presenting the award to Mr Clarke. After the first paper was published, BAFTA announced that Mr Clarke was immediately suspended and that any awards he had been due to receive would be withheld until further notice.
The Guardian subsequently published seven more articles, including allegations from 20 women of sexual misconduct, bullying and harassment by Mr Clarke. Each article cites Clark’s denial of the allegations.
Mr Clark sued the Guardian for approximately 10 million yen, claiming that eight articles about his conduct were false and inaccurate and were therefore (i) defamatory and (ii) in breach of the DPA and GDPR. It is seeking damages estimated to be sterling. .
To date, courts have considered the defamation aspect of the allegations and have rendered the following decisions in preliminary issue hearings:
- With respect to the natural and ordinary meaning of the articles, each of the first seven articles would give the impression to a hypothetical reasonable reader that there were strong grounds for believing that Mr. Clark was guilty of the acts alleged; The eight articles form the basis for an investigation into Mr. Clark.
- that each article is defamatory of Mr. Clark at common law (i.e., that each article disparages Mr. Clark in the eyes of the public and has a material adverse effect on his reputation);
- Each article contained a statement of fact rather than a statement of opinion (which made it impossible for the Guardian to advance its defense of “honest opinion”).
From a defamation perspective, this case highlights the crucial difference between a statement of fact and a statement of opinion. Where the Guardian pursues a public interest defense, it is concerned with the difference between the single meaning determined by the court and the defendant’s (potentially different) intended meaning, which was one of the key features of the recent case. There is a possibility that the spotlight will shine on you.in the case of Banks v Cadwaladr [2023] EWCA Civ 219.
Courts have yet to really consider the impact of the data breach element of the claim. However, this ongoing litigation serves to highlight the potential and actual overlap between these different causes of action.
Donald J. Trump vs. Orbis Business Intelligence Limited
Former US President Donald Trump has filed a data protection complaint against Orbis Business Intelligence, a consulting firm founded by former MI6 official Christopher Steele, seeking compensation for his loss.
Claims related to steele documents The documents, published by Steele in early 2017, included allegations that the former president participated in various sexual activities while in Russia. Mr. Trump claims:false, bogus [and] fabricated suspicions“ha”eIt’s grossly inaccurate.” Similarly “perverted”.
However, Trump did not file a defamation suit against the defendants. Presumably because such claims are time-barred (as the statute of limitations for defamation claims is typically one year from the date of publication, rather than six years for data claims of violation).
Instead, Mr. Trump’s argument is that Orbis, as a data subject within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the GDPR and Article 1(1) of the DPA, unlawfully It is said to have been processed. His personal data gives him “Severe distress and reputational damagePersonal data included in steele documents:
- It was inaccurate.and
- The data was not lawfully processed because it was disseminated to third parties without Mr. Trump being informed about the processing or giving him the opportunity to comment on the accuracy of the data.
Trump was seeking damages, compensation, and an order requiring Orbis to delete or restrict further processing of personal data. Orbis had called for a strike, arguing that the documents were released without authorization, that Trump’s claims had no realistic prospect of success, and that they were filed too late.
On February 1, 2024, the court rejected Mr. Trump’s request and ruled as follows:There is no reasonable basis for bringing a claim for compensation or damages and there is no real prospect of successfully obtaining such relief.”.
The court agreed with Orbis’ argument that the claim was brought too late and found that the claim for damages was made outside the six-year statute of limitations period for data protection claims.
conclusion
Mr Trump’s claims once again underlined that while data protection law is a product of its time, in many ways it is the latest iteration of principles that date back almost 750 years in British law.
Potential parties to reputation management claims should therefore carefully consider all legal areas that may be involved.
