Book a Discovery Meeting

Contact me now for a consultation.






    How To Contest A Speeding Fine

    Getting caught speeding is perhaps the most common criminal offence. After all, it is so easy to creep over 70mph when passing on the motorway unintentionally or fully slow to 30mph in a village after entering from a 60mph open road.

    In most circumstances, if you are caught speeding by a speed camera or a police officer, you will receive a Fixed Penalty Notice, a fine, and perhaps penalty points on your driver’s licence. It is inconvenient, but nothing more.

    However, if you already have numerous penalty points, the new points may result in you being banned from driving for a period, as David Beckham discovered last week after receiving a six-month driving ban after pleading guilty for using his mobile phone while driving.

    There is little doubt, the threat of prosecution significantly raises the consequences of a speeding offence.

    For some, losing their licence means not being able to earn a living. And if you are successfully prosecuted, you may then have a criminal record (if the speeding was part of a more serious offence such as dangerous driving), which can impact on almost every area of your life, including limiting your employment opportunities and which countries you can enter.

    Contesting a speeding fine is not easy as there are almost no defences available for driving too fast.

    However, with the aid of experienced legal advice and representation, there are ways to lessen the impact of a speeding prosecution and/or successfully argue that you must retain your right to operate a vehicle so you can work.

    Defences available for speeding

    If you’re caught speeding by either a traffic officer or a camera, you will be:
    • Given a verbal warning (if caught by a policeman)
    • Offered the chance to attend a speed awareness course, which you’ll have to pay for
    • Issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice (a speeding ticket), with a fine of £100 and penalty points
    • Prosecuted for speeding. You will have to go to court and could face a fine of up to £1,000 (£2,500 if you were caught speeding on a motorway), between three and six penalty points on your driving licence, and a possible driving ban.

    If you are prosecuted, or the totting up of your points means you will likely be disqualified from driving, you may be tempted to defend yourself in Court. This is almost always a mistake. Court’s have heard every excuse for speeding there is; from it being an emergency to not knowing the speed limit of a particular area. Trust me; these will not work.

    The best chance of defending a speeding offence is on a technicality. The three main examples are:
    • The Fixed Penalty Notice was missing certain details or issued incorrectly.
    • You were not driving the vehicle at the time of the offence.
    • The speed limit signs where you were caught were obstructed, damaged or incorrect.

    Let’s examine these in more detail.

    Incorrect Fixed Penalty Notice

    There is a lot of information on the internet suggesting that if there are mistakes on the Fixed Penalty Notice, it is not valid. This is incorrect. The fact your name was spelt wrong or date of the alleged offence is recorded incorrectly will not invalidate the Notice. What an experienced barrister or solicitor will normally do is use the evidence of mistakes to build an argument that the officer was sloppy at performing his or her duties, thereby throwing reasonable doubt on whether an offence of speeding was actually committed.
    You were not driving the vehicle at the time of the offence

    To succeed in this defence, you must be able to prove you were not driving. For example, if your car was stolen, you need to show copies of police reports and evidence that you have contacted your insurers. It is not enough to simply say “it wasn’t me”.

    The speed limit signs were obstructed, damaged or incorrect

    Again, to achieve a positive result, you need to provide proof. This could include photographs of the obstructed signs and/or evidence from the Highways Authority responsible for the road of an obstruction or incorrect signage.

    Mitigation

    In most cases, there is no defence available in a situation where you have been caught speeding. But if your licence is at risk, you can present a plea of mitigation to have the sentence reduced.

    This is where the expertise of a barrister or solicitor comes to the fore. They know the court system and are likely to have been before the Magistrates or Judge before. A Plea of Mitigation is usually made in the form of a letter, which is read by the clerks to the Magistrates before sentencing.

    A well-drafted mitigation letter has an excellent chance of resulting in your penalty being reduced. It should contain the details of the offence, genuine remorse, and reasons why the penalty should be reduced (for example, you will lose your job if you cannot drive or you have a child with special needs and need to take them to various appointments).

    Taking legal advice before writing a Plea of Mitigation letter will dramatically improve your chances of success.

    If you require legal advice on defending a speeding offence, you can contact me directly on 020 3870 3187.

    Book a Discovery Meeting

    Contact me now for a consultation.






      Advertising Law And Political Facebook Ads: Can Control Be Regained?

      On 7 May 2019, the British government officially announced what we all knew – the UK will have to hold the EU elections on 23 May 2019.

      One element of these elections which will be under close scrutiny is how much control is exerted over political Facebook advertisements. In a powerful Ted talk, journalist Carole Cadwalladr, who, along with Emma Graham-Harrison broke the Cambridge Analytica story in the Observer, told Silicon Valley billionaires that they had “broken democracy” following the EU Referendum and President Donald Trump campaigns. Her speech has been viewed by over 1.5 million people.

      We all know something has gone very badly wrong with the democratic process and the door is wide-open for electoral advertising abuse.

      But can it be stopped?

      “What happens on Facebook stays on Facebook”

      In her talk, Ms Cadwalladr states:

      “What happens on Facebook stays on Facebook. Because only you see your news feed and then it vanishes so it’s impossible to research anything. So we have no idea who saw what ads or what impact they had, or what data was used to target these people. Or even who placed the ads, or how much money was spent, or even what nationality they were.”
      “Our democracy is broken, our laws don’t work anymore, and it’s not me saying this, it’s our parliament published a report saying this. This technology that you have invented has been amazing. But now, it’s a crime scene. And you have the evidence. And it is not enough to say that you will do better in the future. Because to have any hope of stopping this from happening again, we have to know the truth.”

      In a report following an 18-month investigation into disinformation and fake news on Facebook, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee called the company and its executives “digital gangsters”. The investigation found Facebook deliberately obstructed the Committee’s inquiry and failed to tackle attempts by Russia to manipulate elections.

      The report also warned that British electoral law is now unfit for purpose and cannot prevent interference by hostile foreign countries which set out to interfere in the democratic process.

      Who regulates political advertising?

      Up until the 1997 General Election, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) had some jurisdiction over non-broadcast political advertisements. However, in 2003, following a consultation, the Electoral Committee ruled the ASA should not be responsible for regulating election advertising.

      For now, if you were to ask (and I did) “who regulates social media advertising”, the answer you invariably receive is “no one”.

      According to the Electoral Commission, the rules around political advertising are now out of date. They are pushing for changes, such as rules stipulating that parties must provide evidence of their financial spend on digital advertising and all political adverts leave an imprint, so their source and content can be tracked and examined.

      However, a new study, published in Political Quarterly, by Dr Katharine Dommett, from the University of Sheffield and Dr Sam Power, from the University of Exeter, claims that any introduced regulations must also consider how Facebook algorithms mean the same advertising spend has different results.

      Dr Dommett said:

      “As digital political campaigning grows it is now increasingly difficult for existing regulators to capture the true extent of what is happening online, let alone whether these practices violate democratic norms. The unreliability of existing data on the use of Facebook needs to be acknowledged by regulators if campaigning spending is to be effectively interpreted and understood.
      “The lack of clear information should concern anyone responsible for overseeing the conduct of modern campaigns.”
      “Although Facebook has introduced some new transparency measures, nobody can fully monitor both how it is being used by political parties and the inequalities of access they can face, added Dr Power. “It is also not Facebook’s role to regulate elections. We need to recognise these limitations to think about whether and how existing reporting requirements need to change.
      “Regulators around the world need to think about how to monitor and respond to spending principles that are creating inequalities in the electoral market place.”

      Facebook’s EU election war room

      Facebook has committed itself to cleaning up its act around fake news, setting up a ‘war room’ in Dublin, complete with 40 employees targeted with overseeing the European Union’s parliamentary elections. This comes after the company has come under pressure from regulators. European leaders are considering new policies to force tech giants to rid their platforms of misinformation, hate speech and extremist content and Facebook faces several investigations related to its handling of user data.

      The company has taken some action, it recently banned several high-profile public figures, including far-right U.S. commentator Alex Jones and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, because of perceived hateful comments. This has led to President Donald Trump accusing the tech giant of interfering with free speech.
      However, Politico has reported that numerous groups have already circumvented Facebook’s new political transparency tools.

      Final words

      Political advertising law is now grossly unfit for purpose. There needs to be clear regulation, enforced by bodies such as the ASA and Electoral Commission to control the content and the spend of such ads.
      Only then can we see free and fair elections across the globe.

      Tanveer Qureshi is a Legal 500 barrister, specialising in ASA compliance, business to business fraud, health and safety, food standards, civil litigation, and corporate crime. If you require legal representation, please contact directly on 020 3870 3187.

      Book a Discovery Meeting

      Contact me now for a consultation.






        Will Extinction Rebellion Change The Environmental Law Landscape?

        It seems as if people have woken up from a deep slumber. For the past 30 years or more, scientists have been warning about the devastating effects of climate change. Now, in part thanks to 16-year-old Swedish school-girl Greta Thunberg, climate change activism has exploded.

        In April 2019, Extinction Rebellion (XR) held several civil disobedience peaceful protests across London and other areas of the UK. Although condemned by many, the actions realised something that, up until now, eminent scientists have struggled to achieve. Climate change and its effects finally dominated the headlines, continuously, for over a week. In addition, MPs have approved a motion to declare an environment and climate emergency.

        Many are now asking, “could XR’s protests change the environment law landscape?”

        To answer that question, we need to look at where the UK sits at present on environmental laws.

        Environment laws in the UK

        Much of UK environmental law comes from the European Union (EU). The principal environmental regimes are:
        • Environmental Permitting Regime (EPR), combining the pollution prevention and control (PPC) regime and waste management licensing and industrial emissions
        • Water
        • Waste (in relation to aspects not dealt with under EPR)
        • Contaminated land
        • Conservation of nature, wildlife, and habitats.
        • Environmental impact assessments (EIAs)

        Environmental liability can arise under:
        Criminal law
        • Civil law
        • Public or administrative law
        • Company law

        The sanctions for breach of environmental laws are harsh. In July 2014, the Independent Sentencing Council issued guidelines for sentencing in environment cases. The guidelines introduced a 12-step sentencing process for organisations intended to reduce inconsistencies in sentencing and ensure that sentences match the seriousness of the offence, the harm caused, and culpability. It also sought to remove any chance of an organisation profiting from an environmental breach.

        Thames Water has been the recipient of some of the biggest fines to be handed down since the sentencing guidelines came into place. In 2017, the company was fined £20 million for pumping 1.9 billion litres of untreated sewage into the River Thames. It was fined a further £2 million after “reckless failure” led to raw sewage flowing into a brook near Milton-under-Wychwood in Oxfordshire in 2015. The pollution led to the death of 150 bullhead fish across a 50-metre stretch.

        Company directors also face substantial fines for breaching environmental laws. In late 2017, the director of Atlantic Recycling Ltd was fined £30,000 and given a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, suspended for one year. He was also ordered to pay prosecution costs of £20,000. Both the company and its director were found in breach of various sections of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010.

        The good, the bad, and the ugly

        When it comes to certain environmental standards and climate change action, Britain is a world leader. For example, the use of coal as an energy source has been drastically cut, and there are plans for it to be phased out completely. And ten years ago, the Climate Change Act was passed, which binds Ministers to cutting carbon emissions by 80% by the year 2050. Also, a Climate Change Committee was formed to advise the government on the most efficient ways to cut emissions. And in an unprecedented move, Mark Carney, and François Villeroy de Galhau, the Governor of the Banque de France, said financial regulators, banks, and insurers around the world had to “raise the bar” to avoid catastrophe.

        Writing in the Guardian, they said:
        “As financial policymakers and prudential supervisors we cannot ignore the obvious physical risks before our eyes. Climate change is a global problem, which requires global solutions, in which the whole financial sector has a central role to play.”

        However, the UK has a long way to go on many fronts when it comes to strengthening environmental laws and policies to truly deal with the challenge humanity is facing. For example:

        • although onshore wind farms can provide the cheapest source of green energy, in 2015 the government blocked all new developments after back-bench MPs stated they were ‘unpopular.’
        • rail and roads are starved of funding, meaning potholes are not filled (discouraging cycling) and high-speed rail developments are prioritised over local commuter routes
        • grants to help low-income families better insulate their homes have been cut as has a government plan for zero-carbon homes

        These are bad. But the ugly comes from the very foundations which capitalism is built on. Although it has resulted in millions of people in developing countries rising out of poverty, the focus on GDP growth and company laws which dictate directors are under a legal duty to maximise profit for shareholders means our current capitalist system may need drastic reconfiguration.

        But as company laws currently stand, directors are in a no-win situation. And frankly, although there are a few bad apples who deliberately or recklessly cause environmental damage in pursuit of profit, most business owners are committed to acting in an environmentally responsible way. Even if only to preserve their organisation’s reputation. However, company laws effectively demand companies increase profits for shareholders year on year. And it is difficult to see how this can continue on an already straining planet.

        Perhaps it is not environment laws that need to change. Maybe to save the planet and allow directors the freedom to put environmental concerns before the demand for growth, it is company laws which need to be overhauled.

        Tanveer Qureshi is a Legal 500 barrister, specialising in environment prosecutions, ASA compliance, business to business fraud, health and safety, food standards, civil litigation, and corporate crime. If you require legal representation, please contact directly on 020 3870 3187.

        Book a Discovery Meeting

        Contact me now for a consultation.






          The Powers Of The FCA

          In mid-April 2019, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced that it was reviewing the way it operates.  In a statement it said that the exercise of extracting Britain’s financial services industry from the EU provided an opportunity to think about the future of regulation in the financial sector.

          In its 2019/20 business plan, the watchdog states:

          “Technology, different consumer needs and new business models were transforming the financial services industry.

          “As the UK leaves the EU, we believe it is time to review how we regulate to ensure it keeps pace”.

          The investigative and enforcement powers of the FCA are wide-ranging.  Since the 2008 financial crisis, public scrutiny of banks and other financial institutions has been high, and the regulatory body is under enormous pressure to deliver results.

          For directors, Chief Financial Officers and Chief Compliance Officers, being investigated by the FCA presents a tangible risk to the reputation and investor and shareholder confidence in the company.

          In 2016, a consultation paper entitled: Proposed Implementation of the Enforcement Review and the Green Report was published.  This, coupled with the appointment of Mark Steward, Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight, has changed the FCAs approach to investigations.  Prior to these two events, investigations, except for suspected market abuse, were usually only launched where it was concluded that a “public outcome” was likely.  A report by Andrew Green QC published in November 2015 remonstrated this approach.

          In the past four years, the threshold for investigating organisations has lowered considerable.  For example, in 2015 the watchdog had 97 open investigations.  This rocketed to 437 by March 2018.  In addition, the chances of individuals being investigated as well as the company has increased.

          Another significant development is that criminal and regulatory investigations are now run in parallel, even if the possibility of a criminal conviction is low.

          This new approach means those in the financial services industry must be alive to the powers of the FCA and seek expert advice if a compliance breach occurs.

          The power to appoint an investigator

          Under section 167 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), an “investigating authority” may, if it considers that there is a good reason for doing so, appoint one or more competent persons (usually members of the investigating authority’s staff) to conduct general investigations into the businesses of certain persons.  The investigating authority is either the Secretary of State or the FCA.

          The general powers of an investigator extend to the nature, conduct or state of the business, a specific aspect of the business, or the ownership and control of a recognised investment exchange (RIE) or and authorised person.  However, this can be extended (with written notice) to including:

          • The business of any person who currently is – or who has been at any relevant time – a member of the group of which the person under investigation is part.
          • A partnership of which that person is – or who has been at any relevant time – a member

           

          If the investigation concerns a specific breach or contravention of a rule, principle or the fitness or propriety of an individual, investigators will be appointed by virtue of s168 (1) or (4) FSMA.

           

          You may not be aware that you are under investigation for some time.  This is especially the case if you are suspected of market abuse and/or criminal activity.  If the investigation relates to general concerns under s167 FSMA you must be given notification.  The same applies to investigations subject to s168 (1) or (4) FSMA unless it is believed notification would prejudice the investigation (for example, documents being destroyed).

          If the investigation is by virtue of section 168(2) FCMA, there is no requirement that notification be provided to the subject.  The first time you become aware of the investigation is when you are asked for documents or information.

          Regardless of when you are informed of an FCA investigation, it is crucial you seek legal advice immediately.  This includes preparing for a ‘scoping meeting’.  Remember, investigators will want to provide as little information as legally possible about the matter they are looking into.  But the scoping meeting is the ideal time to obtain the knowledge required to build a robust defence.  An experienced legal advisor understands this and will help you prepare a strategy so you get as much information as possible during the meeting.

          Dawn raids

          One of the FCA’s most fearsome powers is the dawn raid.  As soon as such an event occurs, contact your Barrister or Solicitor immediately.  They will take the following actions:

          • Establish which regulatory body conducted the raid and on which office premises.
          • Mobilise teams of lawyers to the required locations.
          • Contact in-house legal and compliance teams and liaise with them.
          • If arriving during the raid, accompany investigators taking notes of what is examined, the questions asked and answers provided.

          If it takes some time for your legal team to arrive, it is crucial you:

          • Act calmly and do not obstruct the investigators in any way. Be open and transparent but do not answer any questions until your legal team arrive on the scene.
          • Take the investigators to a meeting room, or somewhere on premises away from staff and customers.
          • Send an email to all staff saying they are not to discuss the investigation internally or externally unless expressly permitted to do so.
          • Send a copy of the search warrant to your Barrister or Solicitor.
          • Check the warrant carefully and if any defects are spotted, discuss it with your Barrister or Solicitor over the phone prior to allowing entry. Such defects may deem the raid unlawful.
          • Try to politely delay the investigators until your legal team arrives. They may continue regardless, however.

          Never leave an investigator alone in in your premises.  Note everything they do, say and touch.

          The power to prosecute

          The FCA has the power to prosecute individuals, bodies corporate and partnerships for a variety of offences, including but not limited to:

          • Carrying on or purporting to carry on a regulated activity without authorisation or exemption in breach of the general prohibition in section 19of FSMA (section 23, FSMA).
          • Making false claims to be authorised or exempt in breach of section 24 of FSMA.
          • Communicating an invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity in breach of the financial promotion restriction in section 21of FSMA (section 25, FSMA).
          • Carrying on, or purporting to carry on, business in contravention of a consumer credit prohibition (section 203(9), FSMA).
          • Providing false or misleading information to an auditor or actuary (section 346, FSMA).
          • Disclosing confidential information in contravention of the statutory restrictions under sections 348and 350(5) of FSMA (section 352, FSMA).

          When deciding whether to prosecute, the FCA follows the Full Code Test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.  The regulator will ask itself:

          • Whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction of the defendant on each criminal charge.
          • Whether, having regard to the seriousness of the offence and all the circumstances, criminal prosecution is in the public interest.

          In cases involving money laundering the FCA will also have regard to whether the person has complied with the document issued by the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group (JMLSG) entitled “Prevention of money laundering/combating terrorist financing: Guidance for the UK Financial Sector”.

          If the prosecution is successful, penalties can include a fine and/or prison sentence.

          In summary

          The FCA is investigating more matters than ever before.  Regardless of whether you feel you have breached compliance or committed an offence it is imperative to seek legal advice if you suspect or become aware of an investigation.  Trying to manage things on your own can lead to unnecessary adverse consequences and reputational damage.

          Tanveer Qureshi is a Legal 500 barrister, specialising in ASA compliance, business to business fraud, health and safety, food standards, civil litigation, and corporate crime.  If you require legal representation, please contact directly on 020 3870 3187.

          Book a Discovery Meeting

          Contact me now for a consultation.






            Social Media And False Advertisements – Who Is Responsible?

            It seems social media is rather akin to the ‘wild west’ when it comes to advertising.  In a recent case of blatantly false promotion on Facebook, household name and MoneySavingExpert founder, Martin Lewis, had his face used (without his knowledge or consent) on a series of advertisement for financial services which were, shall we say, not as reputable as they appeared to be.  Recognising their role in the equation, Facebook donated £3m to scam prevention measures in return for Mr Lewis dropping a lawsuit against them.  So, this begs the questions, what are the rules surrounding social media advertising, and who is regulating it?

            Which entity regulates social media advertising?

            One of the main players in the regulation of online advertising is the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP), which sits alongside the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA); the former is focused on non-broadcast advertising, and the latter on broadcasting.

            CAP produces the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (also known as the CAP Code), which must be adhered to by online advertisers, agencies, and media.  The CAP Code applies to a wide range of non-broadcast media types, including newspapers, DVD’s, cinema, street advertising, and (of most relevance to social media), “advertisements in non-broadcast electronic media, including but not limited to: online advertisements in paid-for space (including banner or pop-up advertisements and online video advertisements); paid-for search listings; preferential listings on price comparison sites; viral advertisements”.  The Code defines several rules designed to provide consumer protection, which includes, but are not limited to, ensuring marketing communications:

            • are legal, decent, honest and truthful
            • obviously identifiable as marketing communications
            • prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and society.
            • respect the principles of fair competition generally accepted in business
            • do not materially mislead or be likely to do so
            • do not contain obvious exaggerations (“puffery”)
            • do not mislead the consumer by omitting material information
            • do not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.

            Influencers are not exempt

            On social media and online video platforms, influencers now play a core role in promoting products and services.  Even the smallest mention can cause product sales to go into overdrive; such is the power of these modern-day lifestyle evangelists.  In one such example, a small cosmetics business ‘Primary Pure’ used influencer marketing to triple sales in just one year.  While the reasons for the power of influencers is still being grappled with, it is widely believed that consumers have lost faith in traditional banner advertising and are increasingly likely to trust people.

            However, due to the huge attraction of influencer marketing, regulators including the ASA have been forced to provide guidance to ensure influencers do not fall foul of advertising rules.  Its guidance makes clear that content may be considered an advertisement if the influencer was paid, or was given a freebie, or the brand had editorial control.  And if content is technically advertising, the content must make this clear to the audience.  Influencers also need to ensure they back-up any claims made.

            Social media and political advertising

            Facebook has been heavily criticised in recent years for not taking steps to prevent misleading advertising.  Facebook ads were a key tool for those determined to sway political opinion at the time of the US Elections and the UK EU referendum in 2016.  To tackle this in time for the upcoming EU elections, Facebook says they are putting in place strict checks to ensure the validity of political campaigners and candidates – in a bid to prevent foreign interference.  This is in sharp contrast to the previous rules (or lack of them) which allowed anyone to create and promote targeted ads to alter how people voted.

            What happens if you fall foul of the ASA/CAP code?

            The UK approach to advertising standards on social media is primarily based on self-regulation.  This means that the ASA/CAP are not legally empowered to enforce adherence to their rules. However, sanctions can be provided.  This includes requiring the advertisement to be amended or withdrawn, issuing alerts to other members advising them to withhold access to advertising space.  CAP can also ask internet search providers to remove paid search advertisements which link to a page on the marketer’s website containing content which breaks the rules.

            Beyond this, marketers may face adverse publicity if they fail to rectify or remove advertisements on their websites or other non-paid-for space.  And the name of the individual or business and the identified issue with their advertising may be featured on a dedicated section of the ASA website – note this is specifically designed to appear in search engine results when an end user searches for a company.

            In some situations, however, the Competitions and Markets Authority (CMA) (which regulates consumer protection law) may intervene.  If they have evidence of an intention to mislead consumers or failure of an influencer to clarify they are promoting a particular brand, the CMA may request that such individuals or business comply with consumer protection law.  Failure to do so may lead to a large fine or even a jail term of up to two years.  In one such example, Social Chain Ltd, a UK-based marketing firm which leverages social media was found in breach of consumer protection legislation.  The business had been publishing content through Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram but not making it clear that much of the content was in fact paid for promotion for films, games and takeaway and dating apps.  The firm avoided prosecution by offering to engage constructively with the CMA.

            In summary

            As we stated at the start of this article, social media is still very much the wild-west when it comes to advertising.  It is still fertile ground for misleading and blatantly false promotion.  So much so, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Committee (under the auspices of the UK parliament), when tasked with investigating ‘fake news’, concluded Facebook is a ‘digital gangster’.  The British government is now making a considerable push to make ‘Britain the safest place in the world to be online’, and while this is centred around safety, it shows how seriously they are taking the need to provide improved internet regulation.

            In the meantime, the truth is, the law is not as clear as it should be when it comes to false advertising within social media.  If you are approached by the ASA or CMA, or any other authority about your social media advertising practises, it is imperative you seek expert legal advice as soon as possible.  Doing so will ensure you understand your legal position, and as a result, can resolve the matter quickly and without financial or reputational damage.

            Tanveer Qureshi is a Legal 500 barrister, specialising in ASA compliance, business to business fraud, health and safety, food standards, civil litigation, and corporate crime.  If you require legal representation, please contact directly on 020 3870 3187.

            Accreditation & Memberships

            Join the Newsletter

            Sign up for my latest news and insights

              × Whatsapp