Unmasking Tattle: Recent Court Ruling opens new doors for online defamation victims

Last Friday’s headlines about the uncovering of the responsible parties behind the infamous Tattle Life (“Tattle”) website has once again brought to the forefront, the issue of anonymity online when it comes to defamation. Tattle is an online forum where users can anonymously discuss and share gossip, opinions, and critiques about social media influencers, celebrities and public figures.

According to court reports, Neil and Donna Sands, two prominent Northern Irish businesspeople, sought legal redress via the High Court in Belfast after false and damaging allegations about them appeared on the Tattle website in 2021. They were awarded £150,000 each in damages in December 2023 as a result of those defamatory statements and have since taken steps to secure the eventual enforcing of that award against the responsible parties behind the website. 

The Orders were initially made against “persons unknown operating as Tattle Life” but last Friday marked a significant victory for the Sands, when the High Court in Belfast lifted reporting restrictions, allowing the responsible parties behind Tattle (British and Hong Kong-registered companies Yuzu Zest Limited and Kumquat Tree Limited and suspected operator of the website, Sebastian Bond) to be publicly named. 

Since last Friday’s judgment, several influencers and businesspeople have spoken out about their own experiences of untrue statements posted on Tattle, not only about them, but their families, with many expressing the detrimental effect it has had on their mental health.

The Sands’ hard work of unmasking the parties behind the Tattle website, has paved the way for others to issue legal proceedings not only against the now named persons and entities noted above, but also against the individual anonymous posters of the defamatory statements whose email addresses and ultimate identities may now be uncovered were a court to make to a Norwich Pharmacal Court Order against those behind Tattle (more on this below). 

In addition to the High Court in Belfast lifting reporting restrictions, it also made a series of worldwide freezing orders of more than £1m, believed to be linked to advertising revenue from the Tattle site.

A further case review is scheduled at the High Court for 26 June 2025.

Who to Sue?

Normally in a defamation action, you sue the person who made the defamatory statement. However, on hosting websites such as Tattle, where the defamatory statements are primarily made by anonymous users, you may only be in a position to initially sue the party you can identify (i.e. the person(s) or entities who own/run the hosting website) and other “persons unknown”. You would thereafter take the necessary steps to try and uncover the identity of the anonymous poster to properly bring them into the proceedings.

Suing a hosting website only can often be challenging as they will more often than not rely on the “hosting defence” (under Article 6 of the EU Regulation known as the Digital Services Act), which can allow them to successfully contest liability if they act quick enough to remove the defamatory content once notified. Hosting websites will also often rely on the principle/defence of ‘Innocent Publication’ in their position as ‘internet service providers’ (ISPs) as opposed to the ‘publishers’ or authors of the defamatory post.

What is a Norwich Pharmacal Order?

As a starting point, to unmask the responsible parties behind the Tattle website, the Sands would likely have obtained a Norwich Pharmacal order. This is a court order that compels a third party—often an internet service provider, platform, or intermediary—to disclose information (such as IP addresses, account information, or contact details) that may identify a person who has been involved in wrongdoing or has caused harm, such as posting defamatory content.

It is understood that a lengthy global forensic investigation was required in order to unmask the now named parties behind Tattle and now that they have been identified, it’s possible that further Norwich Pharmacal orders will be made against those named parties, in an effort to expose the email addresses and ultimate identities of the individual anonymous posters of the defamatory content.

Steps that can be taken by persons affected by online content

If you have been harmed by online content, here are the steps you should consider:

1. Document Everything: Take screenshots of the offending posts, download threads, record the dates, times, and URLs. Preserve all communications and evidence related to the defamatory content. 

2. Seek Legal Advice at the earliest opportunity: Consult with a defamation solicitor experienced in online reputation issues. An early legal review can help you understand your rights, the process involved and the best course of action. Your Solicitor can assist you with the following:

   a. The Initial contact with the platform to seek removal of the defamatory content and/or seek compensation.

   b. Advising you on the steps and potential cost involved in litigating the matter against the relevant parties and the steps required to be taken to uncover the identity of the anonymous poster.

   c. Identifying the time within which you need to take action: In Ireland, you have one year from the date of publication to issue proceedings for defamation. This may be extended to two years in certain circumstances. This does not however prevent you from referring to older defamatory statements in your proceedings for context. 

Contact Us

If you are interested in exploring your legal options or want to know more, please contact us.