03014-25 Essex v Mail Online

Summary of Complaint

1. Nadia Essex complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Eden Blackman dead at 57: Celebs Go Dating star's devastated family announce his death after 'long illness' as Fearne Cotton, Paul C. Brunson and Zoe Ball lead heartfelt tributes”, published on 24 June 2025.

2. The article reported on tributes made to Eden Blackman following his death. Referring to his time on Celebs Go Dating, the article reported:

“Following his departure, Eden became embroiled in a bitter fallout with former co-star Nadia, after she sued him and the show's producers, Lime Pictures, for gender-based discrimination, harassment and victimisation. As cracks began to show on their on-set relationship in 2017, Nadia set up fake Twitter accounts to troll Eden and make unfounded allegations about his personal life. After an investigation revealed her to be the culprit, she was suspended from the show in September 2018 and then decided to quit.”

3. The article went on to report that “Nadia continued to hit out at Eden online, leading to him pursuing a harassment order against her, preventing her from mentioning him again or risk a hefty fine or even prison time.”

4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1, and denied that she had set up pseudonymous Twitter accounts in order to “troll” Mr Blackman, She said she had set up anonymous accounts to defend herself from online trolling. She also disputed that Lime Pictures had conducted “an investigation” into the ‘troll’ accounts. She added that Mr Blackman had not pursued “a harassment order” against her. Rather, she had signed a voluntary undertaking”. She said this undertaking not have the power to prevent her from “mentioning him again or risk a hefty fine or even prison time”, as the article reported.

5. The complainant provided a copy of the voluntary undertaking which stated. This said that the complainant would not “directly or indirectly harass” Mr Blackman, including by “harassing” him “on the internet, world wide web, or any other form of electronic or digital media whatsoever” and “publishing or causing to be published on social media, online and print news media or otherwise any comments capable of amounting to harassment of” Mr Blackman. The undertaking also said that “if the complainant “br[oke] any of [her] promises to the court” she “may be fined” have her “assets seized” or “may be sent to prison for contempt of court”.

6. The publication did not accept that the article was inaccurate. It said that its reporting was supported by a number of articles from 2018. which reported that the complainant had set up ‘sockpuppet’ accounts under other names in order to ‘troll’ internet users. One such article included an acknowledgment from the complainant that she had sent tweets from pseudonymous accounts, and where she was quoted as having said: “after it came out about Eden’s cheating I needed to vent. I wasn’t allowed to speak out as myself because I wanted to keep quiet”.

7. The publication also stated that, in the course of the complainant’s employment tribunal against Lime Pictures, the Employment Judge had said that the complainant “had set up Twitter accounts which she had use to ‘troll’ Mr Blackman and criticise other members of the public”.

8. The publication said that, regardless of whether the complainants’ tweets were directed at Mr Blackman, she had posted deliberately offensive or provocative messages online – by her own account to “vent” about Mr Blackman – and it was not inaccurate to report that she had “set up fake Twitter accounts to troll” him.

9. The publication also did not accept it was inaccurate to report that “an investigation revealed her to be the culprit” of the ‘troll’ accounts.” It again referred to the employment tribunal, which had found that Lime Pictures had “investigated and uncovered further evidence linking the [complainant] to 3 Twitter accounts. It is not in dispute that at least one of the accounts included a number of offensive tweets directed towards members of the public.”

10. The publication also did not accept that the article was inaccurate to reference Mr Blackman “pursuing a harassment order against” the complainant, “preventing her from mentioning him again or risk a hefty fine or even prison time.” It said the article did not claim that Mr Blackman had been granted a harassment order against the complainant – but rather that he had “pursued” one, which it said was supported by an interview Mr Blackman had given to another publication in 2020. In this interview, he had stated: “we have this order and I now don’t have to worry what Nadia Essex is saying about me.” It also noted that another article from the same publication, also published in 2020, reported that the complainant had “now signed a harassment order preventing her from mentioning Eden again. If she fails to follow the order she faces a hefty fine or even a jail sentence”.

11. The publication remarked that the complainant did not dispute that she had signed a legal undertaking not to harass Mr Blackman. Where she was legally bound to respect the terms of the undertaking or – as it stated – “may be fined, […] assets seized or […] be sent to prison for contempt of court”, it did not consider it was inaccurate to report that Mr Blackman had pursued “harassment order against her, preventing her from mentioning him again or risk a hefty fine or even prison time.”

12. Although it did not accept a breach of Clause 1, eight days after being made aware of the complaint by IPSO, the publication amended the article so that it read:

“Nadia continued to hit out at Eden online, leading to him pursuing a harassment order against her. She resolved this legal complaint by signing a voluntary undertaking to the court, preventing her from mentioning him again in circumstances that would amount to harassment, or risk a hefty fine or even prison time for contempt.”

The publication also offered to publish the following footnote clarification, if the complainant wished:

“This article has been updated to amend a reference to a ‘harassment order’ to more accurately refer to a ‘voluntary undertaking’”.

13. The complainant said the amendment was inaccurate, as Mr Blackman had pursued a claim of harassment against her, and had not pursued harassment order.

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

14. The Committee noted that the complainant did not deny having set up a number of pseudonymous Twitter accounts, but contended that she had done so in order to defend herself from trolls rather than to ‘troll’ Mr Blackman.

15. However, given an employment tribunal had found that she “had set up Twitter accounts which she had use to ‘troll’ Mr Blackman”, reporting this claim did not represent a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate information – it was entitled to rely on publicly available court proceedings for the purpose of its reporting. In addition, given the existence of such a finding, and where the complainant did not dispute that she had set up pseudonymous Twitter accounts – albeit for the purpose of defending herself – the Committee did not consider that the article was significantly inaccurate on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

16. The Committee next turned to whether it was inaccurate to report that “an investigation” by the complainant’s former employer had “revealed her to be the culprit” behind the Twitter accounts. It noted that the complainant contended that no such investigation had taken place. However, an employment tribunal had found that the complainant’s former employer had “investigated and uncovered further evidence linking the Claimant to 3 Twitter accounts”, and had noted that it was “not in dispute that at least one of the accounts included a number of offensive tweets directed towards members of the public.” As such, the Committee considered that the publication had demonstrated the accuracy of its reporting on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

17. The Committee then considered whether it was inaccurate to report that Mr Blackman had “pursu[ed] a harassment order against [the complainant], preventing her from mentioning him again or risk a hefty fine or even prison time.” The Committee first noted that the article did not report that Mr Blackman had been granted a “harassment order” – rather, it reported that that he had “pursued one”, which tallied with public statements Mr Blackman had made. Therefore, the Committee did not consider that the reporting that he had pursued an order against the complainant represented a failure to take care, given it was supported by contemporaneous news reports.

18. The Committee also noted that a consequence of not abiding by the undertaking could have led to the complainant being “fined” , having her “assets seized” “sent to prison for contempt of court.” In such circumstances, the Committee did not consider that there had been a failure to take care over the accuracy of this point, or that the article – both the original and amended versions - was a significantly inaccurate report of the outcome of the proceedings and the resulting undertaking. There was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

19. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 18/07/2025

Date complaint closed: 12/01/2026