As new defamation and privacy risks emerge, a new study reveals that under-resourced British newsrooms often retract stories rather than risk legal battles they can’t afford
A new study of newsroom practitioners, media lawyers and press freedom experts has pulled back the curtain on how UK journalists actually manage legal exposure.
The picture it paints will feel familiar to anyone who's had a lawyer's letter land on their desk on a Friday afternoon: defamation and privacy still dominate the anxiety, national security barely registers, and the cost of "playing it safe" is quietly reshaping what gets published at all.
The research by The University of Sheffield is based on interviews with 31 journalists and editors, four media lawyers, and 14 experts from regulators, NGOs and press bodies, all conducted through 2023.
That timing matters as it was a pretty strange year for media law: the Online Safety Act, the National Security Act and the first-ever UK anti-SLAPP provisions all became law within months of each other, none of them yet tested in practice. The study offers a snapshot of what newsrooms were bracing for, before the ink had dried.
Ask any journalist what keeps them up at night, legally speaking, and defamation comes up first. 19 of the 31 journalists raised it unprompted, along with all four lawyers and 11 of the 14 experts.
One media freedom campaigner pointed out that the UK has at times been called "the defamation capital of the world."
A local reporter compared notes with US colleagues and came away envious, pointing out that libel protections across the Atlantic are far more generous to journalists than anything on offer here.
The reason keeps coming back to the same structural quirk of English law: the burden of proof sits with the journalist, not the claimant. If you're accused of libel, it's on you to prove what you published is true, not on the person suing to prove it's false. That single feature of the system shapes almost everything downstream, from how stories get evidenced to which ones get killed before they're even written.
Lucy Nash
The Bloomberg v ZXC ruling came up again and again as a turning point. The case established that people under criminal investigation have a reasonable expectation of privacy until they're actually charged, and several participants described it as having sent a genuine chill through newsrooms.
One investigative journalist described a wave of "fear right now about reporting on people who might be under investigation," warning it could easily tip into self-censorship. Reporters described a shift in how they now write about arrests: information that would once have been named as a matter of course is now routinely withheld, even when it's already widely known.
Several participants described legal threats being used less as claims and more as pressure tactics, designed to make a story disappear rather than to win in court. A journalist at Schools Week described exactly this dynamic in 2023, when the outlet had planned to report on consultants' day rates that had briefly appeared, by mistake, on a government website. An injunction threat from the consulting firm involved was enough to force a retreat, even though fighting it properly would likely have cost over £100,000 regardless of the outcome. The story never ran.
Another journalist recalled receiving what looked like a lawyer's email over a story sourced from a council website, accusing them of defamation. Still relatively new to the job, they passed it straight to their editor, describing the clear intent behind such messages: to intimidate, and to get information pulled from a website whether or not there was any real legal substance behind the threat.
One editor-in-chief, reflecting on decades in British journalism, described a well-known trick used against under-resourced local papers: send a stern lawyer's letter, know the paper can't afford to fight it, and watch them apologise and retract regardless of whether the underlying claim would ever have survived a courtroom. Once that reputation spreads among libel lawyers, he noted, all it takes is one letter to get a retraction, which he called "a terrible state of affairs for a free press to be in."
Jacob Granger
Interestingly, several editors noted that, whereas defamation once dominated newsroom anxiety, legal threats have recently shifted toward issues like confidentiality, privacy, GDPR, and the 'right to be forgotten' — a marked change from the libel claims that were most common a decade ago.
A media lawyer interviewed for the study agreed, describing a steadily "more restrictive environment" around what can be published, with an expanding sense of what counts as private in someone's life.
That's a meaningful change in emphasis. Data protection law, once seen as a niche compliance issue, is increasingly functioning as a live editorial constraint, and one that newsrooms haven't fully adapted to handle.
Given the volume of criticism aimed at the National Security Act while it was still a bill, including warnings from the National Union of Journalists and civil society groups, it's striking that rank-and-file journalists in the study largely shrugged it off.
The Act, passed in 2023, expands the UK government’s powers to counter foreign interference, espionage, and the sharing of sensitive information, raising concerns it could inadvertently criminalise certain investigative work or contact with sources.
Lawyers and experts flagged it as a real risk; working reporters mostly didn't. The researchers suggest a few possible explanations: journalists may simply not be covering the kinds of stories the Act targets, the legislation was still brand new, or awareness hasn't caught up with the law yet. Copyright landed in a similar spot, treated as somebody else's problem, usually the editor's or the lawyer's, rather than something individual reporters need to think about day to day.
The strategies described in the study will ring true for most working journalists. Before anything sensitive goes out, there's a pre-publication ritual: legal review, evidence gathering, and building a public interest case strong enough to survive a challenge.
The cost of that process is eye-watering. One media lawyer contrasted a straightforward Italian libel case, which might cost around €50,000 to get through a first trial, with the UK equivalent, where a "reasonably straightforward case" could run to £1 million in your own legal costs alone, before you even factor in the other side's bill or any damages.
Help us shape JUK. Take our quick audience survey for a chance to win one of six brilliant books. It only takes five minutes - your voice will directly influence our future coverage and make a real impact
That price tag changes behaviour long before anyone sets foot near a courtroom. Some newsrooms have built rigorous fact-checking processes as a result. One investigative journalist described a system where literally every fact in a story gets footnoted, right down to producing the weather forecast to back up a line about it raining on a particular day, all independently checked by a colleague who had no involvement in the original reporting. It's thorough, it's defensible in court, and it's also a lot of extra work that exists purely because the legal stakes are so high.
Well-resourced outlets retain lawyers on staff or on call to vet stories before publication. Smaller newsrooms and freelancers usually can't afford that, leaning instead on informal contacts or sending pieces out for review only a handful of times a year, typically when an allegation feels genuinely risky. That gap between what big and small outlets can afford is one of the study's most uncomfortable findings.
The researchers frame this as a modern version of the "chilling effect", the idea that people scale back legitimate activity simply because they're worried about the law, even when it might not actually apply to them. It's not a new concept, but the study suggests it was alive and well in British newsrooms in 2023, and possibly getting stronger.
There's also a widening resource gap worth watching. Large media organisations can absorb legal costs, retain in-house counsel and fight cases that matter. Local and independent outlets increasingly can't, which means the newsrooms most likely to hold local power to account are also the ones least equipped to survive a legal fight if it comes to one.
