Corrections Policy

Requests can come from:

• The person or company the record is about
• Their lawyer or authorised representative
• Any company or organisation named in a record
• A source
• Anyone materially affected by what we published
• Any member of the public with relevant evidence
• Our own researchers, writers and reviewers

You don’t need a Research Membership to ask for a correction.

A request can concern:

We look at what the challenge actually says and what supports it.

If a request disputes an official record, court document or regulator finding, please send reliable material showing why our account is wrong or no longer current.

We may check the documents you send independently.

Fake, altered or misleading documents may be rejected and dealt with under the law and our policies.

We may review a request against:

Where needed, researchers, editors or lawyers do further checks before we decide.

When we confirm that:

• charges were dismissed;
• someone was acquitted;
• a judgment was reversed;
• a regulator withdrew a finding;
• a sanctions listing was removed; or
• another important decision changed,

we review the record. The update is given prominence in proportion to the original reporting and the change.

An acquittal never gets buried under an old accusation.

We describe settlements by what they actually say.

Where it matters, the record states whether liability was admitted, denied, expressly not admitted, or left open.

We don’t call a settlement an admission unless the documents support that.

Something can be accurate when published and then overtaken by events. In that case we may keep the history and add the later development prominently. For example:

The aim is to stop an old record giving a misleading picture of where things stand now.

When a correction changes the meaning of a record, we may add a correction or update notice explaining what changed, such as:

• what we said before;
• what was wrong or incomplete;
• what we changed; and
• when.

Small spelling, formatting, grammar or style fixes don’t normally need a formal notice.

See the corrections log

A record’s grade can change as a matter develops. For example:

A grade changes because the case or the evidence actually moved — never because of an editorial preference.

We may turn down a request when the record is still fairly and accurately supported by the evidence.

A subject disagreeing with our reporting doesn’t, by itself, make it inaccurate.

Where credible evidence is genuinely disputed, we may set out both positions rather than adopting either side’s version as fact.

We don’t take down accurate reporting just because it is:

Equally, we don’t keep information up just because it is negative. Removal or restriction may be considered for reasons such as:

• mistaken identity;
• materially false information;
• a material claim we can no longer support;
• a binding legal obligation;
• a reporting restriction;
• disproportionate personal information;
• a serious failure to authenticate a source;
• or another compelling legal or editorial reason.

Every request is judged on its merits.

We don’t charge anyone to correct information we find to be materially wrong.

We accept no payment, gifts, favours, membership fees or anything else to hide or change an otherwise accurate record.

Research Members may get professional help preparing or sending supporting material, but membership has no effect on the outcome of a correction request.

Evidence decides the outcome.

Correcting a record here doesn’t instantly change search-engine caches, other databases, web archives, screenshots or copies published by others.

Where technically and legally appropriate, we may update our own metadata or ask search engines to re-index after a material correction.

We can’t guarantee changes to content that other people control.

Nobody gets worse editorial treatment for asking for a correction, hiring a lawyer, disputing our reporting or using a legal right.

Equally, involving lawyers doesn’t exempt a record from review.

Depending on where you are and the circumstances, you may have legal rights about inaccurate personal data, privacy, defamation, court reporting, data processing or other matters.

For example, where UK data-protection law applies, rights and exemptions can arise under the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018, including the provisions on processing for journalism.

Whether a particular right or exemption applies depends on the facts and the jurisdiction. Nothing here limits rights or duties that the law doesn’t allow us to exclude.

Lawyers can make a request for a client. We may ask for reasonable confirmation that they are authorised to act.

A demand from a lawyer doesn’t prove an error. And a lawyer being involved is never a reason to ignore credible evidence that a correction is needed.

We may review a record when:

• new evidence appears;
• a case develops;
• a judgment is issued;
• an appeal ends;
• a regulator changes its position;
• a source is discredited;
• a subject sends important documents; or
• we spot a possible error ourselves.

A published record stays answerable to the evidence behind it.