11KBW Information, Technology and Media Law Conference 2025

Posted on | by lawrence

Bookings are now open for our Information, Technology and Media Law Conference 2025 on Thursday 13 March 2025. Our conference will be covering the new and exciting developments across information, technology and media Law. 11KBW speakers are expected to include Tim Pitt-Payne KC, Anya Proops KC, Andrew Sharland KC, Christopher Knight, Robin Hopkins, Jamie Susskind, Hannah Ready and Ruth Kennedy, amongst others. We are also thrilled to announce that Ofcom will also be participating in this year’s conference, with Jon Higham (Director of Online Safety Policy at Ofcom) and Rob Haywood (formerly of Twitch, now Principal, Online Safety Policy at Ofcom) coming along to speak about the evolving landscape for regulating intermediaries under the Online Safety Act and the practical challenges and opportunities surrounding online content moderation.

The conference will be covering the following topics:

Morning Session – Focus on the technology sector

  • AI Regulation: what next for UK government policy?
  • Online Safety – the view from the regulatory bridge: in conversation with Ofcom’s Jon Higham and Rob Haywood

Afternoon Session – Data, Privacy & Media Law: General

  • Media & privacy update
  • Data privacy class actions: the dog that keeps barking
  • Key developments in the law of data protection

Beyond the content offered through the above sessions, the conference offers a great opportunity for all ITM lawyers and practitioners to network with one another, both during the coffee breaks and lunch-break and also at our post-conference champagne tea. We look forward to seeing you there.

Full Conference Details:

Date: Thursday 13 March 2025

Time: 9am-3.30pm followed by a champagne tea

Venue: The IET, 2 Savoy Place, London, WC2R 0BL

Cost: £125+VAT per session. (£250+VAT for the whole day)

 Bookings: To book your place on this year’s conference please email your name, firm and which session/s you would like to attend with any purchase order information to RSVP@11kbw.com.

Please note we do not take payment via card. You will be sent an invoice for payment via BACS.

​Special requirements

If you have any special requirements please let us know at the time of booking.

​Cancellations
A refund can be made up to 14 days before the conference. A substitute delegate will be accepted any time before the conference.

Additional Requirements
If you have any additional requirements e.g. wheelchair access, large print documentation or an induction loop, or if you have any particular dietary requirements please let us know.

Important Note
11KBW reserve the right at any time and without prior notice to change the venue, speakers or programme. We also reserve the right in our absolute discretion and without further liability to cancel the conference, in which event full refunds will be made.

Important judgment on subject access rights and the scope of personal data

Posted on | by charlotte

Following a 2-day Part 8 trial, Heather Williams J has handed down a lengthy and important judgment concerning the application of the concept of “personal data”, the extent of searches required by Article 15 UK GDPR, the provision of contextual information and the proper approach to the application of the “tax exemption” under paragraph 2 of schedule 2 to the DPA 2018.

Michael Ashley v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2025] EWHC 134 (KB) concerned a claim brought by the well-known British businessman, Mike Ashley, against HMRC for breach of his subject access rights under the UK GDPR. Mr Ashley made a subject access request (“SAR”) in the context of a (then) ongoing tax dispute. HMRC initially maintained that all of Mr Ashley’s personal data were exempt and therefore not disclosable. When it did subsequently provide Mr Ashley with some data, Mr Ashley contended that its response was incomplete and inadequate. He argued that HMRC failed: properly to construe his SAR; to conduct adequate searches when responding to it; properly to apply the concept of personal data and the tax exemption; and to provide him with copies of his personal data in a sufficiently contextualised manner so as to render them intelligible.

Heather Williams J found in Mr Ashley’s favour on each of those points, albeit rejecting his wider argument that all data relating to HMRC’s assessment of his tax liability in respect of the tax enquiry amounted to his personal data. Her judgment contains useful guidance for practitioners dealing with SARs at every stage of the process from construing a SAR when first made, to providing copies of the personal data in a manner that is intelligible and transparent for the data subject. More widely, the judgment contains important guidance as to how the foundational concept of “personal data” is to be construed and applied in practice.

The judgment is here.

Anya Proops KC and Zac Sammour acted for Mr Ashley. James Cornwell acted for HMRC.

Prismall in the Court of Appeal: social media makes justice difficult

Posted on | by Robin Hopkins

Multi-party claims for misuse of data: how do you take them forward? GLOs yes, though they are often seen as too unwieldy. Straightforward multi-claimant litigation using ‘omnibus’ claim forms is fine, but doesn’t get litigation funders the maximum volumes they seek. Representative actions under CPR 19.8 are the ideal vehicle in that sense, but Lloyd v Google effectively killed them as regards data protection claims (no loss of control damages; individualised assessment needed). Can misuse of private information claims (loss of control damages available; individualised assessment perhaps not needed) fare better? The Prismall action was the leading post-Lloyd candidate on this front, but it has suffered another death this Advent. Continue reading →

“What’s the Deal?” Corporate Sponsorship and FOIA 2000 – Garrard v Information Commissioner and British Museum

Posted on | by samuelwillis

The General Regulatory Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal has made a substitute decision in the case Garrard v Information Commissioner and the British Museum [2024] UKFTT 601 (GRC). The Appellant, Dr Christopher Garrard, was successful in part. The reasons will be of interest to those seeking to use information law to access corporate sponsorship arrangements between public institutions and fossil fuel companies, and to those seeking to resist such efforts.

The appeal concerned Dr Garrard’s request to the British Museum in 2022 for information relating to sponsorship negotiations between the British Museum and BP. Dr Garrard challenged the British Museum’s reliance on the commercial interests exemption under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. He argued that the exemption was not engaged and, even if it was, the public interest was weighted in favour of disclosure. Continue reading →

Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Podcast

Posted on | by Jamie Susskind

Jamie Susskind has joined Jasveer Randhawa from Herbert Smith Freehills on the latest episode of their Public Law Podcast series. The episode delves into the regulation of AI, exploring the balance needed between regulation and innovation, and comparing the previous Conservative approach with what we can expect from Labour. They also discuss the use of AI in the public sector, reflecting on the challenges of transparency and accountability for those subject to AI, be they individuals or businesses.

This podcast can be listened to on SoundCloud, Apple and Spotify.