Slander meaning

In this issue: New technologies Information technology Internet Data protection Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Reputation management LexTalk®TMT: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information New technologies iQIYI brings a landmark copyright claim against Chinese AI start-up MiniMax. According to MLex, the China-based video-streaming service has filed proceedings in a local court, accusing the domestic artificial intelligence start-up of infringement linked to AI model training and content production. See: iQIYI sues Chinese AI startup MiniMax for copyright infringement in landmark case. MLex has learned. Appeal Tracker: Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks v Emotional Perception AI Ltd In Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks v Emotional Perception AI Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 825, the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal on 29 November 2024. Earlier, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) upheld the hearing officer’s appeal from...

In this issue: Data Protection ePrivacy Reputation management Cybersecurity State security and intelligence Key developments of 2024 and what to look for in 2025 Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Data Protection OpenAI, X, Google and Meta may rely on legitimate interests for AI models, says EDPB MLex reports that OpenAI, X, Google and Meta can ground the processing of personal data for building and deploying AI models on legitimate interests, provided suitable mitigation measures are applied, according to a significant European Data Protection Board opinion issued on 19 December 2024. The EDPB also addressed how to handle unlawful data processing in AI model development, and when AI models can be deemed anonymised. See News Analysis: OpenAI, X, Google can use legitimate interest for AI models, EDPB says... EU Commission ordered to pay damages over unlawful Facebook log-in data transfer MLex: EU judges today ruled that the European Commission must...

Yavuz v Tesco Stores Limited and another [2019] EWHC 1971 (QB) What are the practical implications of this case? This uncommon slander dispute stemmed from a confrontation in a supermarket between a shopper and a member of staff. It underlines the hurdles a claimant faces in slander actions, where they must prove the exact words were spoken as alleged. Success therefore turns heavily on the quality of witness testimony. The court focused closely on witness assessment, reflecting Tugendhat J’s approach in Cambridge v Makin [2011] EWHC 12 (QB), namely that credibility is best judged by how a witness’s account aligns with established facts and with their prior statements or conduct. Here, the claimant was not considered a compelling witness, whereas the assistant said to have uttered the defamatory words gave evidence in a calm and measured way. In addressing whether there was serious harm within DA 2013, s 1, the court also remarked upon the manner in which the shop assistant...

This Practice Note It sets out guidance on applying the Protocol. It covers: when the Protocol operates its objectives and scope typical outcomes of non-compliance how it relates to limitation The Protocol replaced the Pre-Action Protocol for Defamation Claims. For how it differs from that earlier regime, see News Analysis: Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims. In addition to defamation, the Protocol extends to a range of other media and communications claims which, before 2019, were not governed by a dedicated pre-action protocol. It formed part of broader reforms to media and communications procedure commencing on 1 October 2019, which also introduced a new CPR 53 and a new practice direction. For more on these changes, see News Analysis: New rules for media and communications claims from 1 October 2019...

The ordinary time limit for defamation and malicious falsehood claims A claimant has one year to issue a defamation claim from the point when the cause of action arises, namely the date the defamatory statement is first made public (section 4A of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), inserted by section 5 of the Defamation Act 1996). The Court of Appeal in Siniakovich v Hassan-Soudey confirmed that a claim is treated as ‘brought’ on the day the claim form is first delivered to the court office, even if the office properly declines to issue it because the whole of the appropriate fee has not been paid. For libel, the claimant’s ignorance of any publication at the time is irrelevant to accrual, and so does not postpone the start of the limitation period applicable to their claim. In most varieties of slander and malicious falsehood, however, the cause of action accrues when the claimant suffers pecuniary loss, meaning the limitation period may not track the date of first publication. In...

This Practice Note addresses the key practical steps that arise when pursuing a defamation claim, such as: pinpointing a defamatory statement; deciding whether it amounts to libel or slander; and evaluating the overall suitability of interim relief. It thoroughly reviews the effect of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013) on both claimants and defendants, and sets out practical tactics for the procedural conduct of a defamation case. Defamation Act 2013 Before DA 2013 came into force, defamation proceedings had a reputation for technicality and disproportionate cost, chiefly because arguments centred on the meaning of the impugned words. The government, reacting to a wave of negative media commentary that English defamation law unduly favoured claimants, enacted DA 2013. The Act brought in a suite of reforms, making defamation a tort grounded equally in common law and statute, and, through codification, abolishing several common law defences. Further reading You may wish to consult Duncan and Neill on Defamation (sixth edition, 2025), available subject to subscription. Was the...

This set of training resources comprises PowerPoint templates, suitable as the foundation for single or multiple seminars delivering guidance on the law of defamation. They align with the Defamation Act 2013, and topics addressed include: the difference between libel and slander the elements of a defamation claim damage to reputation and serious harm the issues of publication available defences and remedies Trainers are expected to treat these slides as a practical springboard for their presentations, adapting and editing them as necessary so that they suit, and reflect, their specific circumstances. The training materials can be customised. Follow the link below...