Reputation Management
Trends and insights 2026
Disinformation and misinformation: a growing legal challenge
2025 saw a marked increase in dis- and misinformation campaigns. Disinformation campaigns are deliberate efforts to spread false information to discredit individuals, corporations and governments. These campaigns are increasingly sophisticated and often leverage AI-generated content (sometimes referred to as 'AI slop') to amplify their reach and credibility. They use multiple platforms, intermediaries and jurisdictions which creates complex legal challenges that require a flexible and multi-jurisdictional approach.
60% of organisations worldwide report experiencing reputational harm linked to false or misleading online content.
Deloitte Global Risk Survey 2024
“Disinformation is now one of the most severe global risks facing organisations and governments.”
World Economic Forum, Global Risks Report
The objectives behind such campaigns can vary, ranging from the ideological and political through to the personal and professional. Some attackers are blatant, such as those driven by ideology; others are very difficult to positively identify. The propagation of misinformation can be equally damaging. It refers to inaccurate or untrue information that is not generated deliberately, although it may include the naïve dissemination of information. 2026 will only see this trend grow. Political polarisation across the globe, the positive misuse of information by political leaders and the unwillingness of large platforms (most of which are US based – think First Amendment) to recognise or curtail dis- and misinformation provide breeding grounds for others to exploit. These macro factors are not set to improve in the year ahead; indeed, the reverse is true, so we can safely predict a continuing growth in dis- and misinformation. Responding effectively typically involves repeatedly challenging search engines, large language model providers, and a wide range of platforms and websites to remove or counter harmful content. AI will only make the challenges that much more difficult. Businesses and individuals should be prepared to act quickly and strategically to protect their reputations and mitigate potential harm.
Only 21% of harmful misinformation is removed within the first 48 hours of reporting.
Centre for Countering Digital Hate
"Political polarisation is the accelerant that allows disinformation to spread at scale."
OECD Policy Brief
The Data Use and Access Act
The UK’s Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 introduces important changes that will shape data disputes and media law in the coming year.
Key points:
- Restrictions on decisions made solely by automated processing have been relaxed, provided safeguards exist. This may enable broader use of AI tools.
- Subject Access Requests (SARs): The Act appears to narrow SAR obligations from the perspective of the company responding to the request. It allows refusals for requests deemed 'manifestly unfounded' or excessive and explicitly makes clear that right for an individual to obtain copies of their personal data under the GDPR is limited, so that they are entitled only to the data that would be found in a 'reasonable and proportionate' search. While this clarification is helpful, in substance it largely reflects existing case law and established guidance rather than introducing any significant new obligations.
- The Act requires data controllers to implement a formal process for handling privacy complaints from individuals, such as providing an online complaint form. Controllers must acknowledge receipt within 30 days and, without undue delay, take appropriate steps to investigate and respond. This includes making any necessary enquiries, providing progress updates, and informing the individual of the outcome.
The Act is not yet fully in force and will be implemented in stages over time. However, affected businesses should review their data policies and procedures to see if any changes are needed as a result of the Act. It may be that more privacy-related claims are brought following the implementation of the Act as individuals begin to test the boundaries of this new regime.
Over 40% of organisations say SAR compliance is a material litigation risk
DLA Piper Data Protection Survey
“The Act recalibrates the balance between individual rights and organisational burden.”
UK Information Commissioner’s Office
Issues arising when acting for a CEO and a corporate
Matters affecting both the reputations of a CEO or founder and their company have remained a near constant feature since the #MeToo movement took off in 2017 with allegations against Harvey Weinstein, and they show no sign of dissipating. As much as possible, with perhaps the exception of #MeToo allegations, it is desirable to keep the interests of the individual and company aligned, but it is important to remain alert to the risk of divergence emerging and therefore the need for separate legal and communications representation.
Consistency is key: as much as possible, any communications issued on behalf of both parties should be carefully coordinated to avoid conflicting messages. Where information-gathering is required, employees should be interviewed independently to reduce the risk of pressure or undue influence or the suggestion of either. Equally, remain mindful of potential employment law issues that could affect the CEO, depending on the nature of the allegations or dispute.
Looking ahead, factors such as increased empowerment to complain, political polarisation, economic inequality and high-profile legal cases such as Noel Clarke's failed pursuit of The Guardian and the forthcoming Crispin Odey claim against the FT will only influence the continuation of complaints being raised. This breeds complex, high-risk disputes which require careful planning and proactive risk management from the outset.
58% of corporate reputation crises now involve allegations against senior executives
Edelman Trust Barometer
“Reputation disputes increasingly demand parallel legal and communications strategies.” Chambers Media Law Commentary
