Skip to main content
Legal Advice Centre

Breadcrumb

  1. Queen Mary Legal Advice Centre
  2. Our legal blog
  3. 2026 Blogs
  4. items

SLAPPed into Silence: How Vexatious Lawsuits Threaten Press Freedom in Britain

In the United Kingdom today, the truth can still land you in court - not because it’s false, but because it’s inconvenient. 

Published:

Introduction: Truth turns into a liability

Press Freedom is a fundamental pillar of a democratic state and is protected under various human rights statutes which seek to ensure freedom of expression, such as Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) are legal actions typically brought by corporations or individuals with the intention of harassing, intimidating and financially or psychologically exhausting opponents via improper use of the legal system. These claims are usually framed as defamation cases, are initiated by wealthy individuals or corporations to evade public-interest scrutiny of investigative journalists, writers, and publishers, and are designed to silence criticism; posing a serious threat to press freedom and free speech in the UK.

Origin and Nature

It starts the same way: a journalist digs too deep, and suddenly the courtroom becomes a battlefield. The term SLAPP was first used in the United States of America in the 1980s by University of Denver professors Penelope Caran and George W. Pring. The term gained significance in the 2010s, especially after the assassination of the Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in 2017, as she had been ‘SLAPPed’ with over forty defamation (the majority of them being libel) cases at the time of her death, marking her case as a catalyst for the anti-SLAPP movement worldwide.

In the UK, the issue hit home when a London-based holding company (linked to Kazakh oligarchs) sued investigative journalist Tom Burgis following the publication of his book, Kleptopia. The book exposed how illicit ‘dirty’ money was flooding the economy, implicating powerful and wealthy entities.  The judges found the libel claim to be “wholly baseless”, but it sent a chilling message: even truthful reporting can become a legal hazard when wealth and power are at stake.

How do SLAPPs Differ from Ordinary Cases?

SLAPPs look like ordinary cases, but differ greatly from regular litigation, which is filed to resolve a genuine dispute, seek compensation for damages, and uphold legal rights. In a typical SLAPP, the claimant does not hope to win the case; their goals are accomplished when the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and engages in self-censorship, abandoning the criticism. Their goal is not to win, but to bleed the target dry.

Research by the Foreign Policy Centre and other members of the UK Anti-SLAPP coalition found that these cases are on the rise and that the UK is now Europe’s leading “exporter” of legal intimidation. The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition is an informal working group that brings media organisations, lawyers and human rights defenders together in solidarity, with RSF (Reporters without Borders), The Guardian and The Observer among its members.

Legal Landscape of the United Kingdom:

Legal Grounds for filing SLAPPs

At present, SLAPPs in the UK operate through existing areas of law, with defamation being the most commonly used weapon.

The Defamation Act 2013 gives claimants a basis to claim damage to their reputation or public image, caused by material they claim causes serious harm to reputation or serious financial loss to companies. Even if the claim is not strong enough, it gives wealthy individuals and corporations a chance to burden the defendant with high legal costs and endless court proceedings until they succumb to the pressure.

Section 9 of the Act seeks to counter the misuse of ‘libel tourism’. Despite this, such cases have attracted significant public attention over the past few years. In 2021, investigative journalist Catherine Belton published Putin’s People, a book examining Vladimir Putin’s rise to power and the influence of Russian elites. After publication, five Russian oligarchs—including Roman Abramovich—filed separate defamation lawsuits (regarded as SLAPPs by Reporters Without Borders and the UK Anti-SLAPP coalition) in the UK against Belton and her publisher, Harper Collins.

Privacy and Data Protection

The Data Protection Act 2018 replaced the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 amends and updates existing data protection law, to regulate the way in which data is processed. It gives individuals rights over their own data, ensures that corporations handle information fairly and securely, and establishes standards for data processing.

Under this act, individuals can request organisations to erase or rectify personal data that they consider to be false or improper; however, the “Right to Erasure” or “Right to be Forgotten” may be used as a tool for influential individuals to forcefully have authors or journalists edit criticism about them, according to their narrative. Although this act does have a provision for ‘journalistic exemption’, some argue that it can be difficult to rely on in practice.

Current and Proposed Anti SLAPP Legislations

As of 2026, the UK has no specific anti-SLAPP legislation in its legal framework, nor does it have a statutory definition of anti-SLAPP, creating uncertainty among legal professionals. However, the Solicitors Regulation Authority published an informative warning notice, clarifying that solicitors must not misuse litigation to silence public scrutiny, reinforcing their duty to uphold the rule of law over client pressure.

Britain’s first official step against SLAPPs came with the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. It added two key protections for writers and reporters facing vexatious lawsuits.

  • Section 194 lets judges filter as it introduces an early dismissal mechanism, allowing courts to strike out claims before trial where they are identified as SLAPPs (as defined in section 195) and the claimant fails to show that the claim is more likely than not to succeed.
  • Section 195 goes further, defining what counts as a SLAPP and reminding courts to put free‑speech principles first when assessing such suits.
  • Defendants are potentially protected from legal costs, a vital lifeline for journalists and other defendants, but the law only covers cases tied to economic or financial crime in England and Wales, leaving many others out in the cold.

The European Union has moved in a similar direction. The new Directive (EU) 2024/1069, adopted in April 2024, aims to stop abusive cross‑border cases targeting public participation from investigative journalism to activism. Member states must ensure these claims are heard quickly and can be dismissed early if deemed harassment in disguise.

Back home, momentum is building for broader protections.

The Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill, introduced in February 2024 as a private members’ bill and supported by cross‑party MPs, including Sir Wayne David and Lloyd Hatton, would expand safeguards beyond financial cases to cover all forms of public‑interest reporting. However, its legislative future is still very uncertain.

Dangers of leaving SLAPPs unchecked

Unchecked SLAPP litigation poses systemic risks to both the viability of publications and the integrity of public discourse, distorting public participation and accountability. The most immediate consequence is pre-emptive self-censorship, which would cause smaller publications to back down and stop reporting, fearing costly, prolonged litigation. While larger publications might be able to bear the high costs, for local newspapers, independent journalists, non-profit media outlets, and freelancers, the threat of litigation can be existential. Over time, this would lead to the closure of smaller publishing houses, consolidation of media ownership, and a narrowing of the perspectives available to the public. Investigative journalism stands exposed because it often targets powerful individuals and corporations, and persistent SLAPPs encourage reliance on safer, non-investigative content, undermining journalism’s watchdog function.

Concluding Statements  

Press Freedom is the beating heart of the democratic nation that we are citizens of, and a comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation, clear legal safeguards, and strong support for investigative reporting are not optional—they are essential in today’s times. By developing a strong legal framework for this issue, the UK can ensure that reporting the truth is not a risk, but a right protected by the law. As the UK Anti-SLAPP coalition believes, tangible change requires collective action and awareness on a worldwide scale- a society that values transparency and democratic accountability must stand by those who make the exposition possible. Silencing journalists doesn’t just kill stories — it kills accountability, and the law must choose which side it stands on.

By Saumyaa Agarwal, Student Blog Writer at QMLAC and LLB Law Student. 

This blog is for information only and does not constitute legal advice on any matter. While we always aim to ensure that information is correct at the date of posting, the legal position can change, and the blogs will not ordinarily be updated to reflect any subsequent relevant changes. Anyone seeking legal advice on the subject matter should contact a specialist legal representative

References

 

 

 

Back to top