Daily Mail apologizes to creative director Jo Wallace as defamation case settled
Jo Wallace’s defamation case against the Daily Mail and Mail Online has been settled, with ”substantial damages” being paid to the creative director following untrue allegations in the publisher’s reporting of the JWT sex discrimination case.
The Daily Mail has also agreed not to republish the accusations or images, to cover Wallace’s legal costs and to issue an apology.
Representatives for Wallace pointed out that the story ”falsely alleged that the claimant was responsible for sex discrimination by sacking two straight white men as part of an attempt to obliterative their culture within the advertising agency that they all worked for. The allegation was extremely damaging to the Claimant’s reputation.”
The Daily Mail has agreed not to republish the accusations or images, to cover Wallace’s legal costs and to issue an apology / Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash
It added: ”In addition, the articles published photographs which included seven photographs ... taken without her permission ... from her private Instagram account. Some depicted her on holiday, including sunbathing in a bikini, others showed intimate moments between the Claimant and her wife.”
The latest marketing news and insights straight to your inbox.
Get the best of The Drum by choosing from a series of great email briefings, whether that’s daily news, weekly recaps or deep dives into media or creativity.Sign up
On top of that copyright breach accusation, the representatives claimed Wallace was subjected to a campaign of ”online threats, abuse and hatred, even receiving a threatening message which she felt compelled to report to police for her own protection.”
It ended: ”The Defendant’s publications have had a lasting effect on the Claimant as the articles were not only shocking and embarrassing but as a result of their publication and the impression they made, she has suffered substantial damage to both her career and her reputation. Further, the Claimant is particularly distressed by the impact the articles have had upon her family.”
Representatives for the defending newspaper said: ”The Defendant through me offers its sincere apologies to the Claimant for the distress, embarrassment and upset caused to her by the publication of the Daily Mail article and the photographs complained of in the articles. The Defendant accepts there was and is no truth in the allegations advanced in the Daily Mail article and that her copyright in the photographs were infringed. The Defendant is happy to set the record straight and apologize to the Claimant for the breach of her rights and for the distress caused to her by its publication of the articles.”