Satisfactory Remedy – 04513-25 Galloway v express.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Arden Galloway 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 “Morrisons introduces new ‘30 items’ rule in 420 UK stores this October”, published on 10 October 2025.

2. The article, which appeared online only, reported on a service provided by a supermarket. The service allowed customers to order up to 30 items online, and have them delivered to their address. The article stated that the service had been previously available in only 158 UK stores, but was going to be rolled out to 420 stores nationwide.

3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He said that the headline was misleading as it suggested that there was a new “rule”, and that it would prevent in-store shoppers from buying more than 30 items.

4. In its initial response to the complainant, and 14 days after it was made aware of the complaint, the publication accepted that the headline was inaccurate. It amended the headline of the article to read: “Morrisons rolls out '30 items' service across all stores” and added the following correction below the headline of the article:

“A previous version of this article incorrectly reported that 'Morrisons introduces new ‘30 items’ rule in 420 UK stores this October'. In fact, this 30 items reference only relates to a delivery service that Morrisons is expanding to cover 420 UK stores. We are happy to clarify this and the article has been amended accordingly.”

It also published a standalone correction, which was linked on the homepage for 24 hours and read:

“Morrisons introduces new 30 item rule - A correction In an article dated 10 October 2025, we incorrectly reported that 'Morrisons introduces new ‘30 items’ rule in 420 UK stores this October'. In fact, this 30 items reference only relates to a delivery service that Morrisons is expanding to cover 420 UK stores. We are happy to clarify this and the article has been amended accordingly and can be found here. [LINK]”

5. The complainant did not accept the proposal as a resolution to the complaint, as he considered the headline to be clickbait. He also had concerns about wider coverage at the newspaper.

Relevant Clause Provisions

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.

v) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.

Relevant IPSO Regulations

40. If a Regulated Entity offers a remedial measure to a complainant which the Regulator or, if applicable, the Complaints Committee considers to be a satisfactory resolution of the complaint, but such measure is rejected by the complainant, the Regulator or, if applicable, the Complaints Committee shall notify the complainant of the same and that, subject to fulfilment of the offer by the Regulated Entity, it considers the complaint to be closed and a summary of the outcome shall be published on the Regulator's website.

Outcome

6. The publication requested that IPSO consider whether the remedial measures it had offered to the complainant amounted to a satisfactory resolution of the complaint such that, subject to fulfilment of the offer, the complaint could be closed.

7. IPSO noted that the publication amended the headline and added a correction to the article which acknowledged the initial misleading information, and put the correct position on record. The complainant did not dispute that the correction set out the correct information. These changes were completed within 14 days of receiving the complaint, and prior to a formal investigation from IPSO, which represented due promptness. The correction was published beneath the headline and as a standalone correction which appeared on the newspaper’s homepage, which represented due prominence.

8. Having taken into account the nature of the complaint and the publication’s remedial actions in response, IPSO concluded that the remedial measures offered by the publication were a satisfactory resolution of the complaint and the complaint would be closed.

Date complaint received: 10/10/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 19/12/2025