06495-25 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 “Motorists taking 1 type of medication issued urgent ‘do not drive’ warning”, published on 16 December 2025.

2. The article reported: “Certain pills and medicines can make motorists drowsy, tired and unaware of their surroundings, posing a major safety risk.” It then went on to report: “According to GEM Motoring Assist, over-the-counter cold and flu treatments and prescription painkillers are all major risks”; and “GOV.UK has said motorists should talk to their doctor before taking amphetamines, clonazepam, diazepam, or flunitrazepam. Those on lorazepam, methadone, morphine, oxazepam and temazepam should also speak to a medical professional before getting behind the wheel.”

3. The complainant said that the headline of the article was not supported by its text, in breach of Clause 1. He said this was the case because the headline said that motorists “taking 1 type of medication” had been issued a warning, which contradicted the article’s references to several types of medication.

4. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It said the “1 type of medication” referenced in the headline was the type of medication that could induce drowsiness; the article made this clear, and therefore supported the headline.

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

5. The text of the article made specific reference to types of medicine that can make motorists drowsy, tired and unaware of their surroundings, and reported that warnings had been issued in relation to these medicines. The headline, in turn, referred to “1 type of medication”. It did not refer to a specific brand or use-case, and the Committee noted that “type of medication” can hold different meanings, depending on context.

6. Given this, the Committee considered that the article supported and clarified the headline by setting out the type of medication which had been subject to a warning – namely, medication which can caused drowsiness -and the nature of the warning. There was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

7. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 17/12/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 22/04/2026