03617-24 Şenvardar v The Mail on Sunday

Summary of Complaint

1. Serkan Şenvardar complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Mail on Sunday breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Exposed: Black market dealers selling puberty blocker drugs to British teenagers cheating ban”, published on 12 May 2024.

2. The article reported that “teenagers convinced they are the wrong gender are breaking an NHS ban on puberty blocker drugs by buying them online from foreign dealers,” and detailed how “an undercover Mail on Sunday reporter posing as a young teenage girl was able to buy large quantities of puberty blockers shipped to Britain from Turkey, Hong Kong and Russia.” It said the complainant, who it described as “a dealer based in Turkey”, “shipped a testosterone-blocking drug called bicalutamide from Istanbul.” The article continued, “Sold under the brand name Casodex, bicalutamide is a prescription-only medication usually used for treating prostate cancer” and that influencers had claimed that “it’s pretty effective at basically making testosterone useless”. The article reported that “last week, the MoS tracked [the complainant] to the holiday resort of Marmaris in Turkey, where he initially told our undercover reporter she could buy more Casodex. When we later confronted him about his business, he denied involvement in the online operation.” The article also reported that, “reacting to our findings last night, [the former Health Secretary] pledged to look at 'legislative options' to crack down on the black market in puberty blockers.”

3. The article also contained a photograph of the complainant, captioned, “DEALER: Serkan Senvardar shipped puberty blockers from Istanbul”. In the corner of the image, which appeared to be cropped, there was an arm and a pixilated portion of someone’s face.

4. The article also appeared online in a substantively similar form under the headline “Exposed: The black market dealers selling puberty blocker drugs to British teenagers who are cheating ban”. The online article included the same photograph of the complainant captioned “Serkan Senvardar a dealer based in Turkey, shipped a testosterone-blocking drug called bicalutamide from Istanbul”.

5. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because he denied he was connected to selling of puberty blockers. He also said the article portrayed him as a “drug baron”, and implied he was a criminal. He disputed he had sent the reporter a package from Istanbul, and said that he hadn’t been to the city for over four years. He also said that Casodex was not a prescription-only medication in Turkey.

6. The complainant said the photograph of him – which he said also showed his son – represented an intrusion into his private life in breach of Clause 2. The complainant provided a link to his Facebook page, where he said the photograph had been taken from. His Facebook page was open, and people who were not his friends or followers were able to access it. He said that the article's inclusion of this name also intruded into his private life.

7. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It said it was confident that the complainant had been accurately pictured and that his connection to the activities reported in the article had been reported correctly. To support its position, it supplied a memo from the reporter which detailed her efforts to ensure she had correctly established the identity of the complainant and the fact he had been selling the medication described in the article.

8. The reporter said that, after buying the medication, she had been told to wire money to a man with the complainant’s name. She had used two separate social media platforms to confirm the complainant’s identity and likeness, as well as visiting his home in Turkey where the complainant's family and neighbours confirmed they knew the complainant and the picture from Facebook showed him. The reporter said these individuals also provided her with the complainant’s telephone number. The reporter said she had phoned the complainant on the number given and he had confirmed he sold medicine online.

9. The publication also supplied screenshots of the complainant’s social media profile, which it said had since been updated but had previously followed four pages of interest: Trans Hormones Supplies; HRT and Menopause Forum; Glutax 5GS Micro Advance (a page which posted about skin whitening supplies for sale); and Dubai Goods (which also posted about skin whitening). It also supplied records of the reporter’s financial transactions, which it said demonstrated the complainant was responsible for selling the reporter the medication, as his name was listed as the recipient of the funds. It said the complainant, during conversations with the reporter prior to publication, had made clear he knew her full name, which would only have been possible if he had received the money for the medication via bank transfer. The reporter also supplied screenshots of an individual with the same name as the complainant confirming via WhatsApp that he supplied medicines, and that the complainant was able to order more.

10. The publication also denied the article portrayed the complainant as a criminal; it said it was made clear his actions were legal.

11. The newspaper also said that Cause 2 was not engaged. It said it had simply published the complainant’s likeness, which was publicly available on Facebook. It said the complainant’s business was not private, and he had not explained why he had a reasonable expectation of privacy over this information.

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.

Clause 2 (Privacy)*

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Findings of the Committee

12. The Committee first considered whether reporting that the complainant "shipped a testosterone-blocking drug" and describing him as a "dealer" was a breach of Clause 1(i). The publication had been able to provide a basis for its reporting, including social media accounts, financial records, the complainant’s knowledge of the reporter’s full name, and WhatsApp messages with an individual confirming that the reporter could order more medication – with the number having been provided by another individual who had, according to the publication, positively identified the complainant from his social media photograph. Given there had been clear steps to verify and fact-check the links between the complainant and the supply of the medication described in the article prior to publication, the Committee were satisfied the publication had taken care not to print inaccurate information. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

13. The Committee then considered whether it was significantly inaccurate to report the complainant was “a dealer” who had "shipped a testosterone-blocking drug”, and whether a correction was therefore needed under Clause 1 (ii). The Committee noted that the article reported that the complainant had sold Casodex, which the article explained was usually sold to treat prostate cancer and that it also acted as a puberty blocker according to some influencers. The Committee were also conscious of the same factors it considered when making a finding on Clause 1 (i) – namely, the basis for linking the complainant with the supply of the medication described in the article. It also noted the fact the article included the complainant’s denial that he sold the medication. Considering these factors, the Committee was satisfied the article was not significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted on this point, and there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

14. The Committee considered whether the article had inaccurately reported the complainant was a “criminal”. The Committee noted at no point did the article state the complainant’s actions were illegal, and that in fact it noted former Health Secretary had “pledged to look at 'legislative options'” to prevent puberty blockers being sold. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1.

15. The Committee then considered the complainant’s concerns the article had intruded into his privacy. Clause 2 makes specific reference to the fact that account should be taken of a complainant’s own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material complained of is in the public domain. Therefore, the Committee had regard for the fact that the photograph which appeared in the article had appeared on the complainant’s own open social media pages. It also noted the content of the photographs: the images themselves did not reveal anything about the complainant beyond his likenesses. Furthermore, the Committee did not consider the complainant’s son was visible in the image, given only part of his arm and a small portion of his pixilated face could be seen in the picture. Taking into account these factors, the Committee did not consider that the publication of this photograph intruded into the complainant’s private and family life. Furthermore, an individual’s name – in and of itself - is not something which would generally be considered private information. In this case, where the name was not reported in conjunction with any private information, there was no breach of Clause 2.

Conclusions

16. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

17. N/A

Date complaint received: 13/05/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 25/09/2024