02320-25 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 “FTSE 100: Rachel Reeves in crisis as UK GDP falls and markets react”, published on 12 June 2025.

2. The article was a live blog reporting on the latest developments in the stock market. The opening paragraph of the live blog reported that “Rachel Reeves is facing a crisis this morning […] as new figures have suggested that the UK economy shrank by more than 3% in April.”

3. It then reported that, “[y]esterday, stock prices in London ended higher after the US and China negotiators announced a ‘framework’ agreement, while the US consumer inflation print was also softer than expected. The FTSE 100 index closed up 11.27 points, 0.1%, at 8,864.35. The FTSE 250 ended up 39.08 points, 0.2%, at 21,428.54, and the AIM All-Share closed up 2.51 points, 0.3%, at 768.83.”

4. At 8:39 am on the day of its initial publication, an update was added to the article which reported that the “Office for National Statistics (ONS) published new GDP figures”, which showed that “monthly real gross domestic product (GDP) is estimated to have fallen by 0.3% in April 2025”.

5. At 8:42 am, the following update was added: “The FTSE has just dropped by -1.43 (0.016%). Seconds later it went up again to +0.080 (0.00090%). Then it gained ground further to +0.25 (0.0028%)”.

6. The complainant said that the article breached Clause 1 in two ways. He first said the article inaccurately reported the economy shrank by 3% in April 2025 where it was well known that it actually shrank by 0.3% in this month.

7. Secondly, the complainant said the headline was misleading as he considered it suggested the market reacted negatively to the “crisis”. He said this was not supported by the text of the article, which reported the UK stock market was up.

8. The publication accepted it had inaccurately reported that the UK economy had shrunk by 3% in its opening paragraph. It said this inaccuracy had come about due to a simple human error. It said it had amended the article to remove this inaccuracy within hours of the article’s publication. Later, during direct correspondence with the complainant, and six days after it had first been made aware of the complaint, it confirmed that it had published the following correction at the top of the article, beneath the headline:

“A previous version of this article incorrectly reported the UK economy had shrunk by 3%. In fact, this figure should have been 0.3%. We are happy to clarify this and the article was corrected a few hours after publication.”

9. The publication, however, did not accept that the headline was inaccurate or misleading. It said the article was a live blog, detailing how the market originally reacted to the crisis of the GDP fall. It said that the phrase “market reacts” – used in the headline - simply meant the market had responded to this fall: it did not exclusively suggest a negative reaction. Given the article made clear the stock market closed higher that day than on the previous day, it did not consider the headline was inaccurate or misleading.

10. The complainant accepted the publication’s correction addressed his concerns regarding the inaccurate 3% figure. He said, however, that he disagreed with the publication’s position that the headline was accurate to refer to markets reacting to the fall.

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

11. The Committee first considered whether the article breached Clause 1 by reporting that GDP had shrunk by 3% in April 2025. It noted the publication did not dispute it was inaccurate to report that the economy shrank by 3% in this month, and that the correct figure was 0.3%.

12. The Committee further took into account that the article, in an update posted at 8:39 am on the day of the article’s publication, stated that the “monthly real gross domestic produce (GDP) is estimated to have fallen by 0.3% in April 2025”. It also noted the publication’s explanation that the error was a simple human error.

13. The Committee noted that the monthly GDP figures were readily available and easily verifiable. This was reflected by the fact that the publication had reported the correct figure. The Committee also noted that the publication had not set out any steps it had taken to prevent the publication of the inaccurate information, or of similar errors – and to mitigate the impact of human errors on its reporting. Given this, the ease with which the publication could have verified the correct position, and the fact that the article was contradictory on this point, the Committee did not consider that the publication had taken care over this information. There was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

14. The Committee next considered whether the error was significant and therefore required correction under Clause 1 (ii). The Committee noted that the inaccurate information appeared as part of the opening paragraph of the article, which referenced the “crisis” the UK Chancellor was facing “as new figures have suggested the UK economy shrank by more than 3%”. The claim appeared to be the basis of the headline, which focused on the Chancellor being “in crisis as GDP falls”. The emphasis on the “crisis” caused by the fall in GDP gave the inaccurate claim greater significance and weight.

15. The Committee also noted that the difference between the correct position and the inaccurate claim – a fall of 0.3% as opposed to a fall of 3% - was a tenfold increase in the alleged rate of contraction of the economy, a significant amount given the size of the UK’s GDP. Further, the Committee considered there to be a public interest in ensuring that reporting about the UK economy is accurate, particularly in cases where articles are reporting matters of public interest such as contractions in the economy. The Committee therefore considered the inaccuracy was significant, and required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

16. The Committee went on to consider whether the correction already published by the newspaper was sufficient to address the terms of Clause 1 (ii) - which requires that significantly inaccurate information is corrected promptly and with due prominence.

17. It considered that the correction clearly set out the correct position: that the economy shrank by 0.3% in April 2025, rather than 3%. It further noted that the correction appeared underneath the headline of the article, and was published six days after the publication was made aware of the complaint.

18. The Committee considered that publishing the correction beneath the headline was duly prominent, as readers would be made aware both of the original inaccuracy and the correct position prior to reading the full article. It also considered that publishing the correction within a week of the complaint being brought to the publication’s attention represented due promptness. The Committee therefore considered that the publication had corrected the significantly inaccurate information, promptly and with due prominence. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

19. Finally, the Committee turned to the complainant’s concerns about the headline. The Committee considered that the word “reacts” could suggest either a positive or a negative reaction; it did not necessarily mean that the markets had fallen. Given this, and where the article made clear that the market had performed well on the relevant day, the Committee did not consider the headline– was inaccurate or misleading in the way suggested by the complainant. There was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

20. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i).

Remedial action required

21. The published correction put the correct position on record and was offered promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.

Date complaint received: 12/06/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 30/10/2025