Resolution Statement – 12184-20 Graham v dailystar.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Leigh Graham complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that dailystar.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Liverpool fan rinsed for modelling in full 1993 home kit he's selling on eBay”, published on 31 July 2020.
2. The article reported on an advert on eBay for a Liverpool FC kit which they reported was being sold by a “Liverpool fan”. The article described that the eBay advert had gone viral, and included many comments aimed at the person selling the football kit. The article also reported that the advert had gone live “after the Reds won the Premier League” and that it was “brazen attempts to make a quick buck of the back of his side's Premier League title win by listing a vintage kit on eBay for £150”.
3. The complainant, the man selling the kit and featured in the photos said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as he was not a Liverpool fan, and that the kit had been up for sale on eBay for over a year, and had not been listed to make money after Liverpool won the Premier League as stated in the article.
4. The complainant also said that the article breached his privacy under Clause 2, as the article had caused further intrusion and derogatory comments on social media. He also said that the social media posts that the newspaper had shared were insulting.
5. The publication said that it did not believe that there was a breach of Clause 1 as neither of the alleged inaccuracies were significant. It offered to amend the article to remove these comments as a gesture of goodwill.
6. The publication said that as the images and information was taken from an open eBay advert, the complainant had no reasonable expectation of privacy under Clause 2.
Relevant Code Provisions
7. 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.
8. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.
9. The publication offered to delete the article and the social media posts promoting it.
10. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.
11. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.
Date complaint received: 31/07/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 01/09/2020Back to ruling listing