00337-25 Williams-Key v express.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Alan Williams-Key complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that express.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “BBC licence fee bombshell as Keir Starmer tries to shut Netflix loophole”, published on 28 January 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only – appeared under the sub-headline: “Ministers could also create a tier system so lower-income households pay less than higher-income households, or make iPlayer viewers pay a subscription fee”. It opened by reporting:

“Sir Keir Starmer is reportedly considering making people pay the TV license fee even if they only use streaming services.

The move would be part of the Government's plans to change the way the public-service broadcaster is funded, Bloomberg reports.

Anonymous sources familiar with the matter claimed to the outlet that the Prime Minister's office, the Treasury, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) are discussing a list of options.

Other funding options reportedly include allowing the BBC to show adverts, making BBC radio listeners pay a fee, and taxing streaming services.”

3. The complainant said that the headline breached Clause 1. He stated that, from reading the text of the article, it was clear that the Prime Minister was not “trying” to close “the loophole” – rather, the government were discussing a number of options for funding the BBC, and no decision had been made.

4. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It said, firstly, that the headline reported that the Prime Minister was “trying” to shut the loophole in question – which related to the government’s consideration of extending the TV license to include households that only use streaming services. The headline did not report that a decision had been made.

5. Further, it said that, given this option had been officially presented for consideration by the relevant bodies, it was accurate to say the Prime Minister was “trying” to close the loophole. It said this was consistent with the text of the article, and pointed to the first paragraph in particular as a demonstration that the article supported the headline.

6. In response, the complainant maintained that the article breached the Code. He said that the term “tries to shut” – as reported in the headline – suggested that the action had started, but was yet to finish. He also said it was not justified by the publication’s argument that the option was under consideration.

Relevant Clause Provisions

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

7. The headline reported that the Prime Minister was “tr[ying] to shut” the loophole in question: that streaming services, such as Netflix, do not require a TV licence. It was not in dispute that a decision had not yet been taken on this. The question for the Committee was, therefore, whether the term “tries to shut” was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted, and whether it was supported by in the text of the article.

8. The Committee recognised that the headline did not report that a decision had been taken to close the loophole – it reported that the Prime Minister was trying to close the loophole, therefore suggesting to the reader that no formal measure had been implemented. The article then went onto make clear that the Prime Minister “is reportedly considering making people pay the TV license fee even if they only use streaming services” – and that options had been proposed to the relevant government bodies to introduce different funding options for the BBC.

9. Considering this, the Committee considered there was a sufficient basis for the publication to report that the Prime Minister had tried “to shut” the loophole, and that the headline was not inaccurate, misleading, or distorted on this point. The article also supported the headline, as it made clear that this option had been proposed to the relevant government departments. It not in dispute there was discussion of these “loopholes”, with the intention of “closing them”.

10. Accordingly, the Committee considered that the text of the article supported and clarified the headline, which was not inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. There was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

11. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

12. N/A

Date complaint received: 29/01/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 14/04/2025