Post-Publication Legal Response: What to Do When the Demands Arrive

Pre-action letters: what they are and what to do

A pre-action letter — often called a “letter of claim” — is the formal first step in potential defamation proceedings. Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Defamation, the claimant must set out the words complained of, the meaning they attribute to those words, the facts said to be false, and the harm alleged. The Protocol gives the defendant a specified time to respond: usually 14 days for an interim acknowledgement and a longer period for a full reply.

• ›Do not delete or alter the article — this can be treated as an admission and destroys your evidential record.
• ›Preserve all editorial notes, source contact records, emails, recordings, and documents relating to the story.
• ›Contact your editor and legal department immediately. Freelancers should call the NUJ legal advice line.
• ›Do not respond directly to the claimant or their solicitor without taking legal advice first.
• ›Acknowledge receipt within the stated period even if your full response will take longer.
• ›Failure to comply with the Protocol can affect costs orders if the case proceeds to court.

Injunction applications and super-injunctions

An injunction is a court order restraining publication. In privacy and defamation cases, claimants can apply ex parte (without notifying the defendant) for an interim injunction, particularly where they argue that the damage from publication would be irreversible. The court applies the American Cyanamid balance-of-convenience test: is there a serious issue to be tried, and does the balance of convenience favour an injunction pending a full hearing?

• ›Privacy injunctions are more commonly granted than defamation injunctions — courts are cautious about restraining speech before trial.
• ›A return hearing is typically listed within days, giving the defendant an opportunity to challenge the injunction.
• ›A publication ban may apply pending the return hearing — any publication during this period risks contempt of court.
• ›Super-injunctions additionally prohibit reporting the existence of the injunction; they are extremely rare and require exceptional justification.
• ›If you become aware of an injunction affecting your story, take immediate legal advice before publishing anything.
• ›The Human Rights Act 1998 requires courts to balance Article 8 (privacy) against Article 10 (freedom of expression).

Cease-and-desist letters

A cease-and-desist letter is a demand — usually from a solicitor — requiring you to stop a specified activity. Unlike a pre-action letter under the Defamation Protocol, a cease-and-desist has no automatic legal force. It is not a court order. However, ignoring it entirely without assessment is unwise.

Takedown demands: NTDs and hosting pressure

The US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notice-and-takedown system does not apply as law in the UK, but many hosting platforms and CDNs respond to DMCA-style notices regardless of jurisdiction, because they are incorporated in the US or use US infrastructure. A platform may remove content provisionally without assessing legal merit.

• ›UK law — the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 — provides a different framework: hosts are not liable if they act expeditiously on actual knowledge of unlawful content.
• ›You have the right to challenge a takedown; platforms with counter-notification processes must restore content if no court action follows within a specified period.
• ›Notice-and-takedown systems can be abused to censor legitimate journalism; document the demand and your response.
• ›If your hosting provider removes content, contact them immediately to invoke any counter-notification or appeals process.
• ›Consider whether the content can be mirrored elsewhere while the dispute is resolved.

ICO complaints under UK GDPR

The journalism exemption in Schedule 2 Part 5 of the Data Protection Act 2018 exempts journalistic processing from certain UK GDPR obligations where the data controller reasonably believes compliance would be incompatible with the special purposes and publication is in the public interest. The exemption is not absolute.

• ›The exemption covers obligations including subject access requests, right to erasure, and data minimisation — but only to the extent compliance is incompatible with the journalistic purpose.
• ›The ICO can still investigate complaints and issue assessment notices even where the exemption is claimed.
• ›If the ICO contacts you, do not ignore the inquiry. Respond within any stated deadline and explain the basis on which the exemption is claimed.
• ›Keep records of your public interest assessment — the ICO may ask to see them.
• ›The exemption does not cover processing that goes beyond what is necessary for the journalistic purpose.

IPSO complaints

IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation) regulates most national and regional newspapers and many online publications. Complaints must generally be made within four months of publication. IPSO first seeks resolution through the publication's own complaints process before the Complaints Committee investigates.

• ›Common clauses cited: Clause 1 (accuracy), Clause 2 (privacy), Clause 10 (clandestine devices and subterfuge).
• ›IPSO investigators will contact the publication and request a response; failing to engage will be noted.
• ›Where a breach is found, IPSO can require a correction or adjudication to be published, sometimes with equivalent prominence to the original story.
• ›IPSO distinguishes between complaints resolved informally (no breach found or resolved by the publication) and upheld rulings (a breach of the Editors’ Code was established).
• ›IPSO cannot award financial compensation or impose fines, though upheld rulings are published and searchable.
• ›A mandatory offer to resolve a complaint — for example, an offer to publish a correction — may prevent escalation to a full investigation.

IMPRESS complaints

IMPRESS is the press regulator for publishers who are not members of IPSO, including many independent online publications. It is the only regulator recognised under the Royal Charter on press self-regulation established following the Leveson Inquiry.

• ›IMPRESS members are subject to compulsory low-cost arbitration — complainants can bring legal claims through arbitration rather than the courts.
• ›IMPRESS operates a faster, less expensive complaints process than litigation and is often faster than IPSO for smaller publishers.
• ›IMPRESS can award financial redress through arbitration, unlike IPSO — this is a significant difference for members.
• ›IMPRESS Standards Code covers accuracy, privacy, harassment, discrimination, and other areas.
• ›If your publication is an IMPRESS member, review the IMPRESS Standards Code alongside the complaint to assess exposure before responding.

Which response applies?

Related guides

Primary sources

• Pre-Action Protocol for Defamation (justice.gov.uk)
• Defamation Act 2013 (legislation.gov.uk)
• IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice
• IMPRESS Standards Code
• ICO journalism exemption guidance
• NUJ legal advice helpline

Frequently asked questions