Resolution Statement – 02155-25 Shah v thetimes.com

Summary of Complaint

1. Amar Shah complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “40 richest people under 40 in the UK”, published on 18 May 2025.

2. The article, which appeared online only, reported on the 40 richest people under 40 in the UK. It said: “Megastars are beaten by the new titans of tech in this year’s 40 under 40 list, which includes British talent from entertainment, sport and business — both inherited and self-made start-ups.” It named the complainant and said: “£264 million: The Cambridge-educated Shah, 37, set up the driverless car venture Wayve with [named individual] (ranked No 11) in 2017. The former Goldman Sachs banker has moved on to Charm Therapeutics, a tech-driven pharmaceuticals firm.”

3. The complainant said that the article was in breach of Clause 1 because the stated figure was inaccurate – he said it was not even within a 50% margin of error. He also said the article did not clarify that the figures presented in the article were estimates. 

4. The publication said it did not accept a breach of Clause 1 because the figures quoted in the article were based on publicly available information. It said the figure comprised a valuation of the complainant’s current stake in Wayve and the valuation of the proceeds from previous sales of shares. It provided its sources and calculations.  The publication also made clear that The Rich List methodology - which is published each year alongside the main list and any articles based on it- set out that the reported figures were estimates, based on publicly available data, which did not include private assets, such as money held in private bank accounts.

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.

Mediated Outcome

5. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

6. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to amend the first paragraph to: “Megastars are beaten by the new titans of tech in this year’s 40 under 40 list, our estimate of the wealth of the UK’s richest young people. The list includes British talent from entertainment, sport and business — both inherited and self-made start-ups.”

7. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.

8. 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: 28/05/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/08/2025