Decision of the Complaints Committee – 09537-19 The Sunbed
Association v thesun.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. The Sunbed Association complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that thesun.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in a series of articles:
2. The first article reported an account of a woman who had over
used sunbeds and did not wear sun cream whilst on holiday, and had gone on to
develop basal cell carcinoma. She characterised this as “sunbed cancer”. The
article also contained a fact box titled “Dying for a tan” which stated that
“sunbeds are as dangerous as smoking, according to the World Health
Organisation”; that “Sunbeds pelt the skin with such strong UV rays that 20
minutes on one is comparable to four hours in the sun”; that “there are around
7,000 tanning salons in Britain”; and that using sunbeds before the age of 35
increases your chances of developing melanoma by 87%.
3. This article also appeared in print under the headline
“'PERMANENT REMINDER' Tanning addict left with ‘Harry Potter’ scar after having
cancer cut from her face” and was substantially the same as the online article.
4. The second article reported on three women from the US who had
developed skin cancer after using sunbeds. The article reported that the “Dying
For a Tan” campaign had been launched in order “to raise awareness of the
devastating impact sunbeds can have on users’ health.” It also stated that
prior to 2010 there were no restrictions on who could use sunbeds; that using a
sunbed at any age can increase your risk of developing cancer by up to 25%;
that children as young as eight are using sunbeds, and that sunbeds “pelt the
skin with such strong UV rays” which increases the risk of skin cancer.
5. The third article was a first-hand account of a woman who had
used sunbeds and then been diagnosed with cancer. The article repeated the
claims that 20 minutes on a sunbed is comparable to four hours in the
Mediterranean sun and that using sunbeds before 35 increases your chances of
developing melanoma by 87%.
6. The fourth article reported the accounts of three women who
battled cancer after using sunbeds. One of the women was quoted as saying
"As far as I am concerned, sunbeds need to be banned. Mexico and Australia
already have - and they've seen a drastic decrease in skin cancer cases”. The
fact box titled “Dying for a tan” from the first article was also repeated in
this article.
7. The fifth article reported the first-hand account of a man who
stated he was addicted to tanning. The man blamed his tanning habits, which
amounted to £500 a month, for the fact he was refused a mortgage. The article
included a statement from the mortgage company which said: “’We would never
reject an application on the basis of someone’s lifestyle choices or a Google
search. We factor in a number of components to determine an individual’s
eligibility and apply a rigorous and fair assessment process to each
application.’ It could not discuss the named person’s specific application due
to client confidentiality.” This article also contained the text box titled
“Dying for a tan” from previous articles.
8. The sixth article reported on a celebrity’s own account of her
insecurities about being pale, and how she dealt with this by using sunbeds,
sunbathing and fake tan and how this had led to her being petrified that she
will get skin cancer in the future. The article opened by reporting that the
celebrity was speaking out on behalf of Fabulous’ “Dying For a Tan” series on
the “risks of using sunbeds”. The celebrity was quoted as saying "In the
last decade there has been an influx of skin cancer cases. It stems from people
in the eighties and nineties spending hours on sunbeds. Now it's coming back to
harm them later in life” and that "I do worry about getting skin cancer in
the future - you only have to use a sunbed a handful of times.” The article
also reported that around 50% of girls aged 15-17 in certain areas still use
sunbeds. This article also contained the text box titled “Dying for a tan” from
previous articles.
9. The seventh article reported on several women who had sunbeds
in their own homes. The article opened with the claim that sunbeds were “as
deadly as asbestos and can increase your risk of skin cancer by almost 90 per
cent.” It also characterised sunbeds as “cancer timebombs”. One of the women
featured described her struggle with Bowen’s disease and how she is currently
battling a “potentially fatal cancer”. She described her disease as a
“pre-melanoma form of skin cancer that forms squamous cell carcinoma” and that
the “little lumps can go from a mark the size of a pinprick to a tumour the
size of a grapefruit in no time - and it spreads around the body, fast.” She
said her illness was caused by her use of sunbeds. Another of the women said
seeing a doctor saved her life as she was diagnosed with basal cell carcinoma.
The article repeated the claim that using sunbeds before the age of 35
increases your chances of developing melanoma by 87%.
10. The complainant, the association for the sunbed industry which
represented tanning salon operators, as well as manufacturers and distributors
of sunbeds and lamps, said that all of the articles were inaccurate in breach
of Clause 1 as sunbeds, when used properly in regulated salons within the
regulations set by the complainant, are not carcinogenic, as suggested in the
articles.
11. The complainant said that the first article was inaccurate in
breach of Clause 1 for numerous reasons. It said that using a case study of a
woman who had basal cell carcinoma whilst using the headline “sunbed cancer”
was inaccurate, as the woman in the case study had abused both sunbeds and the
sun and it was not certain that using a sunbed was the sole cause of her basal
cell carcinoma. It also said it was inaccurate to describe basal cell carcinoma
as a “cancer” and that it would be more accurate to call this a skin lesion.
12. The complainant also said that stating in the first, second,
third and fifth articles that the World Health Organisation classed sunbeds as
“as dangerous as smoking” was misleading, as they did not mention the other
carcinogens that the World Health Organisation had listed, such as the sun,
alcohol and the contraceptive pill in Group 1. Group 1 carcinogens are
classified by the World Health Organisation where there is sufficient evidence
of carcinogenicity in humans. The complainant said that the publication had
chosen smoking as it was the most sensational.
13. The complainant further said that reporting in the first,
second, third and fifth articles that “Sunbeds pelt the skin with such strong
UV rays that 20 minutes on one is comparable to four hours in the sun” was
inaccurate and based on outdated research that did not take into account EU
regulations, which had been introduced in the UK in 2009, and stated that one
minute on a sunbed must be equal to one minute in the Mediterranean sun. The
complainant said that the EU regulations had been introduced in 2009 and that
the industry had 1-3 years in order to implement them before they were enforceable.
The complainant said that the research that the newspaper had supplied had
collected its data between 2010 and 2011, and therefore the EU sunbed
restrictions had not been fully introduced at this point. The complainant said
that this, in addition to the fact that the data had been collected over nine
years ago, meant that it could not be considered to be accurate contemporary
data.
14. The complainant also said that stating in the first, second,
third, fifth, sixth and seventh articles that there were 7,000 tanning salons
in Britain was inaccurate. It said that all the UK’s major sunbed suppliers sat
on its board, and together they held the relevant data which confirmed that
there were only 2,000 tanning salons in the UK. The complainant said, however,
that they could not provide evidence of this as it could not be shared with
third parties.
15. The complainant also said that the assertion that using
sunbeds before the age of 35 increased your chances of developing melanoma by
87%, in the first, third and seventh articles, was inaccurate as the sources of
this data were not included and the complainant felt that they were therefore
unsubstantiated.
16. The complainant said that the second article also breached
Clause 1 because the case studies were from the US and related to people
abusing sunbeds. It said that this was misleading as the regulations and output
are different from those in the UK and were therefore irrelevant to readers in
the UK.
17. The complainant also said that it was inaccurate to state in
the second article that prior to 2010 there were no restrictions on those under
18 to use sunbeds. The complainant said that since 1995 the Sunbed Association
has not allowed anyone under 16 to use sunbeds, and health and safety
guidelines also recommended no one under 16 to use them.
18. The complainant also said it was misleading to state in the
second article that using sunbeds had a “devastating impact” on the user’s
health, that using a sunbed at any age increased the risk of skin cancer by up
to 25%, that children as young as eight were using sunbeds and that sunbeds
“pelt[ed] the skin with such strong UV rays”. It said that the sources to these
claims were not included and that they were therefore unsubstantiated.
19. The complainant said that the third article was also
inaccurate as the person in the case study had abused sunbeds. It also said
that reporting that the person’s cancer was caused by sunbed use was inaccurate
as this was based on that person’s self-diagnosis.
20. The complainant said that the fourth article was inaccurate
as, although the case studies were from the UK, they referred to people who had
used a sunbed at a young age, at home without guidance and too frequently,
rather than following the complainant’s guidelines.
21. The complainant said that it was inaccurate for the fourth
article to quote one of the people in a case study as saying that sunbeds should
be banned and that they had been in Mexico and Australia and that these
countries had seen a decrease in melanoma since. The complainant said that
Australia had not banned home sunbeds, just those in salons. It also provided
documents from the Australian government’s website which said that the
estimated number of incidents of melanoma was estimated to be 13,280 in 2016
and in 2019 it was estimated to be 15,229. It said this showed that melanoma
incidence had increased in Australia since the country-wide ban at the end of
2014. It also said that Mexico had not banned sunbeds.
22. The complainant also said that the fifth article was
misleading as the person in the case study had overused sunbeds and had used
tanning injections, which the Sunbed Association did not support. It also said
it was misleading to say that his tanning obsession resulted in his alleged
mortgage application being denied, as the article had included a statement from
the mortgage company which denied that his tanning habit had any part in their
decision to reject his application.
23. The complainant said that the sixth article was misleading as
the person the article was about had very pale skin and should not have used a
sunbed. It said that stating that there are “risks” to using sunbeds was
inaccurate. It also said that a quote from the woman interviewed in the article
in which she said that the increase in skin cancer in the past decade was due
to people using sunbeds in the eighties and nineties and that you can get skin
cancer after using a sunbed “a handful of times” was inaccurate as the
journalist had not asked her for medical evidence to back up her claim. The
complainant also said it was misleading not to mention that skin cancer can
also be caused by the sun after an anecdote in which the woman interviewed got
sunburned and was left “laid in bed crying and in agony”.
24. The complainant said that the sixth article also breached
Clause 1 as it referenced research that said 50% of girls aged 15 to 17 use
sunbeds in certain areas such as Liverpool and Sunderland, but did not report
the source.
25. The complainant also complained that the seventh article,
which said that sunbeds are as deadly as asbestos and can increase the risk of
skin cancer by 90%, because it did not quote the evidence for these claims. It
also said that describing a sunbed, but not normal sunlight, as a “cancer
timebomb” was inaccurate as it said that sunbed’s are not carcinogenic if used
responsibly.
26. The complainant also said it was inaccurate for the woman in
this article to describe her Bowen’s disease as “potentially fatal” in the
seventh article as Bowen’s disease is not life-threatening and is a skin lesion
that can be easily removed and does not metastasise. It also said that the
woman in the case study saying that “If I hadn’t gone on the sunbeds, I’d have
had perfect skin and would never have gone through all this pain" was
misleading as it was a self-diagnosis and did not factor in exposure to
sunlight.
27. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1 in any of
the articles, as there was a wealth of information from a variety of sources
that sunbeds cause cancer. For example, the publication noted: Cancer Research
UK has reported that the “IARC (The International Agency for Research on Cancer
[an intergovernmental agency forming part of the World Health Organization])
agrees sunbeds are an established cause of melanoma” and that “sunbeds can
increase your risk of melanoma skin cancer by 16-20%”; advice from the NHS
website which stated that “sunbeds give out ultraviolet (UV) rays that increase
your risk of developing skin cancer”; a statement from the British
Photodermatology Group which stated “sunbeds should not be used as they
significantly increase the risk of skin cancer”; a study in the British Medical
Journal which reported that first using sunbeds before the age of 35 increased
the risk of getting melanoma by 87%; and that the World Health Organisation has
classified sunbeds as Group 1 carcinogens.
28. The publication disagreed with the complainant’s definition of
basal cell carcinoma in the first and seventh article as not a true cancer, as
this condition is a form of cancer and those who are diagnosed with it face the
same fears.
29. In relation to the first, second, third and fifth articles,
the publication considered that as the complainant had agreed that the World
Health Organisation classed sunbeds as a Group 1 carcinogens, there was no
inaccuracy to report this and that it was within the same group as smoking.
30. The publication asserted that it had taken care when it
reported in the first, second, third and fifth articles that “Sunbeds pelt the
skin with such strong UV rays that 20 minutes on one is comparable to four
hours in the sun”. It referred to a 2013 study in the British Journal of
Dermatology which stated that nine out of ten sunbeds in England emitted
ultraviolent radiation levels which exceeded current EU safety limits. It acknowledged
that in 2009 EU regulations had been introduced which set sunbed safety limits,
however it contested the complainant’s suggestion that these safety limits had
a four year implementation period, and therefore all sunbeds in salons should
have met the EU standard at the time the study was conducted. However, it said
it would be happy to clarify this point both online and in print.
31. The publication said that the complainant had told another
publication that there were between 6,000 and 7,000 tanning salons in the UK in
an article in 2009. It said that it was therefore entitled to rely on this in
the first, second, third, fifth, sixth and seventh articles. A further
publication also contained a quote from the complainant estimating that there
were between 3,500 and 4,000 tanning salons in the UK in 2019. The publication
also said that the first article had reported that there were “around 7,000”
salons, rather than stating it as fact. The publication offered to clarify the
complainant’s position in a correction.
32. The publication also provided an article from the British
Medical Journal as the source for the claim in the first, third and seventh
articles that using sunbeds before the age of 35 increases your chances of
developing melanoma by 87%.
33. The publication said that research reported on by Cancer
Research UK said that people who had ever used a sunbed were 20% more likely to
develop melanoma, and where other skin cancer causing factors were controlled
for this rose to 29%. It therefore said that reporting that using a sunbed at
any age increases the risk of skin cancer by up to 25% was not misleading in
the way the complainant suggested.
34. The publication said that the quote in the fourth article, which referred to sunbeds being banned in Mexico and Australia and that these countries had seen a decrease in melanoma as a result, was a quote from an interviewee and was clearly attributed to her. It recognised that the interviewee may have mistakenly referred to Mexico when they meant to refer to Brazil, and the online article was amended to reflect this. However, it stated that this was clearly attributed to the woman in the case study and that this was her point of view. The publication also said that whether there had been a decrease in melanoma in Australia after the ban was not significant to the overall thrust of the article, and the complainant had not disputed the quote with respect to Brazil. The publication did, however, remove the quote from the article.
35. The publication said that the claim in the sixth article that
cases of skin cancer had increased in the past decade due to people using
sunbeds in the eighties and nineties was directly attributed to the celebrity
who was the focus of this article. Nevertheless, it said that this was
supported by Cancer Research UK, which stated that over the past decade
melanoma rates had increased by almost two-fifths (38%) in the UK. Rates in
females have increased by almost a third (30%), and rates in males have
increased by almost half (47%) (2015-2017).
36. The publication also provided information from Cancer
Research, the British Photodermatology Group and the NHS which demonstrated the
link between sunbeds and skin cancer.
37. Whilst not accepting a breach of Clause 1, the publication
offered to publish the following correction in print in the Corrections &
Clarifications box on page 2 of the paper and online as a footnote to each
article under complaint, and it said that it would remove the relevant
sentences:
In a series of articles in 2019 we reported that 20mins on a
sunbed was comparable to 4hrs in the sun. A 2013 study published in the British
Journal of Dermatology found that 9 out of 10 sunbeds in England exceeded
safety limits, emitting an average of 2.3 times more radiation than the Mediterranean
midday sun. Sunbeds are carcinogenic, but there is no robust data showing
20mins on one is similar to 4hrs in the sun. We also reported that there were
around 7,000 tanning salons in the UK. The Sunbed Association now estimates
that there are around 2,000.
Relevant Code Provisions
38. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading
or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the
text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion
must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate —
an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as
required by the regulator.
iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies
should be given, when reasonably called for.
iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings of the Committee
39. The publication had relied on the findings of multiple
sources, including the International Agency for Research on Cancer, medical
journals, the NHS, the World Health Organisation and cancer charities, that
sunbeds do cause cancer as they emit UV rays which cause skin cancer, often
stronger than natural sunlight. There was no breach of Clause 1 with regards to
this in any of the articles under complaint.
The publication had not been able to provide contemporary evidence
which demonstrated its claim that 20 minutes on a sunbed was comparable to four
hours in the sun, which was reported in the first, second, third and fifth
articles. On this basis, the Committee found that it had failed to take care
under Clause 1(i). As this claim was repeated throughout the campaign, and
could be found in a fact box, it was held to be a significant inaccuracy
requiring correction under Clause 1(ii). The publication had initially relied
on the fact that the assertion regarding the 20-minute statistic had been
widely cited, however once it recognised that there was no robust data to
support it, it had promptly offered to publish a correction. The wording
identified the inaccuracy and set out the correct position, and the publication
had offered to publish it on page 2 and as a footnote to the articles under
complaint, which was duly prominent. The Committee considered that this was sufficient
to meet the terms of Clause 1(ii).
40. The Committee noted that multiple websites and the NHS
describe basal cell carcinoma as a cancer, and it was not inaccurate for the
publication to characterise it this way in the first and seventh article.
Additionally, the first article made clear that the basis for describing the
person’s basal cell carcinoma as “sunbed cancer” was that the person giving the
account attributed it to her abuse of sunbeds and the fact that she went in the
sun without high factor sunscreen. The headline was clearly attributed to the
woman giving the account of her skin cancer, and the basis for this was made
clear. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
41. The Committee noted the complainant’s concerns that multiple
articles had reported that the World Health Organisation classed sunbeds as “as
dangerous as smoking” without including the other Group 1 carcinogens as identified
by the World Health Organisation. As the complainant did not dispute that both
smoking and sunbeds are classed as Group 1 carcinogens and publications are
free to choose which facts they cite, there was no inaccuracy and there was no
breach of Clause 1.
42. The first, second, third, fifth, sixth and seventh articles
had reported that there were 7,000 tanning salons in Britain. The Committee
noted that the newspaper had relied on a ten-year-old article for this
information, while the complainant said the true figure was 2,000 tanning
salons, but had been unwilling to provide any data to support this. However, in
the context of the articles, which related to people’s personal negative
experiences of using sunbeds, and where the complainant declined to provide
evidence of the correct figure, this was not a significant inaccuracy and there
was no breach of Clause 1. The Committee did, however, welcome the
publication’s offer to put the complainant’s position on the record in a
clarifying footnote.
43. The publication had demonstrated that the British Medical
Journal had published a study which stated that using sunbeds before the age of
35 increased your chances of developing melanoma by 87%. It found that it was
not a breach of Clause 1 to report this in the first, third and seventh
articles without explicitly reporting the source within these articles. There
was no failure to take care over the accuracy of the articles on this point.
44. The Committee noted the complainant’s concerns that the second
article was published in a British newspaper, yet featured case studies from
the US of people who had abused sunbeds. However, the country that the people
featured lived in and their habits did not mean that the article was
misleading, particularly where the article made clear that the people mentioned
were from the US, and there was no breach of Clause 1.
45. The Committee found that in the second article, it was not
inaccurate to state that there were no restrictions for under 18s using
sunbeds. Whilst there may have been guidelines in place, there were no specific
laws and the publication was entitled to characterise this as no restriction.
There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
46. In the second article, the Committee found it was not inaccurate
to report that using sunbeds had a “devastating impact” on users’ health, as
this was supported by the NHS, Cancer Research UK and the British Medical
Journal’s reports that sunbeds can cause cancer as well as the World Health
Organisation classifying sunbeds as a Group 1 carcinogen. The publication had
also provided a blog from Cancer Research UK, which reported on a British
Medical Journal article, which supported the assertion that using a sunbed at
any age increases the risk of skin cancer by up to 25%. It was also not
misleading to report that sunbeds “pelt the skin with such strong UV rays” as
sunbeds, by nature, emit UV rays. “Pelt” was not a misleading word for this.
There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
47. The Committee also found that in the second article, the
complainant was not in a position to dispute that children as young as eight
were using sunbeds. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
48. The Committee noted the complainant’s concerns that the third
article reported the experiences of a person who had used sunbeds without
following the complainant’s recommendations, and that the link between the
person’s cancer and sunbeds was based on that person’s self-diagnosis. However,
the article was clearly a first-hand account from the person, and the
publication was not in a position to know why the woman in the article’s cancer
had developed, and the publication was entitled to report her own account of
her illness. Further, the publication was entitled to report the sunbed habits
of the subject of the case study – even if they were not what the complainant
advised. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
49. Similarly, the fourth article was not inaccurate for reporting
on people using sunbeds outside of the complainant’s guidelines, where the
article had reported their sunbed habits accurately. There was no breach of
Clause 1 on this point.
50. The fourth article contained a quote from one of the case
studies in which she said “As far as I am concerned, sunbeds need to be banned.
Mexico and Australia already have - and they've seen a drastic decrease in skin
cancer cases”. The woman was a layperson, and was interviewed in the article in
order to give her first-hand account and opinion of sunbeds and their risks. It
was accepted that the person had inaccurately stated that Mexico had banned
sunbeds; in fact, Brazil had done so. In addition, the complainant had
expressed concern that the woman had been wrong to assert that cases of skin
cancer had fallen in Australia following the 2014 countrywide ban on sunbed
use, and it had supplied information which demonstrated that estimated melanoma
rates in Australia had increased between 2016 and 2019. However, the
publication had taken care to accurately report the woman’s comments and it had
correctly attributed them to her. On receipt of the complaint, the publication
had amended the quote to refer to Brazil, rather than to Mexico, and the whole
quote was later deleted during IPSO’s investigation. The Committee welcomed the
amendment, but it did not consider that, in the context of the article, which
detailed a woman’s personal experience, these represented significant
inaccuracies which warranted correction under the terms of Clause 1.
51. Again, in the fifth article the Committee did not find it
misleading to report a person’s first-hand account of their experiences of
using sunbeds and tanning injections. The Committee also noted that it was
clear from the article that it was the interviewee’s opinion that his tanning
obsession resulted in his mortgage application being denied, it was not stated
as fact. The article had also included a comment from the mortgage company
which had denied his tanning was the reason he was denied a mortgage. On this
basis, there was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
52. It was not misleading to report a person’s first-hand account
of using a sun bed because she had pale skin in the sixth article. It was also
not inaccurate to report that there are “risks” associated with sunbeds, when
this is overwhelmingly supported by data. Furthermore, in an article about
sunbeds, it was not misleading to omit to mention that being burned from
natural sunlight can also cause cancer. There were no breaches of Clause 1 on
these points.
53. The sixth article also contained a quote from the celebrity
which said that the increase in skin cancer in the past decade was due to
people using sunbeds in the eighties and nineties and that you can get skin
cancer after using a sunbed “a handful of times”. The publication had
demonstrated that there has been a significant increase in the number of skin
cancer cases in the past decade. The Committee found that this person was
entitled to cite sunbeds as a cause, when the publication had provided evidence
that sunbeds have been established as a cause of cancer by organisations such
as the WHO. In addition, where skin cancer is caused by over exposure to UV
light, it was not inaccurate to report that a person can get skin cancer after
using a sunbed “a handful of times” where this formed part of a quote
attributed to an interviewee. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
54. The sixth article had referenced research that said that 50%
of girls aged 15 to 17 use sunbeds in areas such as Liverpool and Sunderland.
The complainant did not dispute the statistic but was concerned that the source
had not been made clear. The Committee found that it was not inaccurate not to
report the source of this research within the article. There was no breach of
Clause 1 on this point.
55. The Committee noted that the seventh article had not given the
sources for the claims that sunbeds are as deadly as asbestos and can increase
the risk of skin cancer by 90%. However, the publication had provided evidence
from the British Medical Journal to support the fact that sunbeds can increase
the risk of skin cancer by 90%, and both sunbeds and asbestos are Group 1
carcinogens as defined by the WHO. Omitting to mention the source of this
information did not render the article inaccurate or misleading. There was no
breach of Clause 1 on these points.
56. The Committee found that the publication was entitled to
characterise sunbeds as a “cancer timebomb”, and omit to mention natural
sunlight in the seventh article, due to the authoritative amounts of evidence
provided by the publication that sunbeds are carcinogenic. In addition, the
basis for this characterisation made clear in the article. There was no breach
of Clause 1 on this point.
57. The Committee found that the complainant was not in a position
to dispute a woman’s first-hand account of her battle with Bowen’s disease.
There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
Conclusions
58. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial Action Required
59. The correction which was offered clearly put the correct
position on record, and was offered promptly and with due prominence, and
should now be published.
Date complaint received: 13/12/2019
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/06/2020
Back to ruling listing