By Betul Milliner & Wesley O'Brien
|
Published 05 November 2026
Companies developing innovative healthcare products and technologies operate in areas that can attract close public scrutiny. Concerns about clinical research, patient data, product safety, procurement, or a company’s or employees' political associations can all give rise to widespread comment.
That scrutiny can become more serious if it moves beyond the underlying issue and develops into a campaign directed at the people associated with the company, aimed at forcing it to change its position. Employees may face repeated communications, personal allegations, the online publication of private or defamatory information and approaches at homes or workplaces. Public-facing senior personnel may become a particular focus because they can be a "softer" target than the corporate entity.
Two recent High Court decisions illustrate the legal remedies that are available to a company when its employees are targeted. In Travelers Insurance Company Ltd and others v Baldwin [2025] EWHC 2957 (KB), corporate claimants obtained an injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to restrain a campaign against their staff. In a claim brought by MKR against various domain registration and hosting companies [2026] EWHC 2452 (KB), the court required domain and hosting-related companies to disclose information to identify those behind an anonymous online campaign.
When does a campaign become unlawful?
Criticism or scrutiny can cross the threshold into unlawful conduct when:
- It evolves into a persistent course of unacceptable and oppressive conduct
- False or defamatory allegations are published
- Private or confidential information is disclosed
The same conduct may give rise to several overlapping claims - including harassment, defamation, malicious falsehood, misuse of private information, data protection breaches or breach of confidence - providing a range of different remedies. In practice, the immediate priority will often be to obtain a court order, for example to stop the harassment and protect those being targeted, or to identify an anonymous wrongdoer so that proceedings can be brought against them.
Protecting employees from harassment
Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 a company can seek an injunction where a defendant harasses two or more individuals - for example, its employees - with the intention of persuading the company to do something it is not obliged to do, or to refrain from doing something it is entitled to do.
The recent Travelers Insurance Company Ltd decision illustrates the protection available to companies and their employees who are the target of this type of campaign.
In this case a dispute, which had arisen from legal services provided to the defendant’s daughter, developed into a sustained campaign against her former solicitors, their professional indemnity insurer and the solicitors appointed to deal with the dispute, over many months. The course of conduct included abusive and threatening emails, accusations of fraud and cover-up, threats of public exposure, demands for substantial payments, leafleting and repeated proposals to attend offices. There were also visits to office premises and direct targeting of individuals involved in handling the complaint.
The Court found that the level of seriousness of the defendant’s behaviour was well beyond upsetting or annoying and that the course of conduct undoubtedly amounted to harassment. It granted an injunction to restrain the defendant’s ability to communicate with the claimants or to continue making the allegations against them to others.
Notably, however, any injunction granted under the Act must strike a careful balance: because it affects the defendant’s right to freedom of expression, it should extend only as far as is necessary and proportionate to stop the unlawful conduct.
What if the campaigner is anonymous?
Anonymous online campaigns create an additional challenge where accounts, domain registrations or proxy services are used to conceal the identities of those involved. Where a company and its employees are being targeted by an anonymous wrongdoer, a Norwich Pharmacal order can be sought to identify a perpetrator by requiring an innocent intermediary, that has become caught up in the wrongdoing, to disclose information needed to bring proceedings against the proper defendant.
The company must establish:
- A good arguable case that wrongdoing, such as harassment or defamation, has occurred
- That the respondent is sufficiently mixed up in the wrongdoing
- That the respondent is able, or likely to be able, to provide the relevant information
- That the disclosure sought is necessary and proportionate
The recent MKR decision illustrates how a Norwich Pharmacal order can be used to uncover the identity of those behind a sustained anonymous online campaign.
In this case, the claimant was an academic whose name had been used in thousands of domain names and search-result snippets directing visitors to pornographic or adult content, and she sought to identify those responsible. Over approximately 20 months, thousands of domains were created which embedded the claimant’s name in their URLs, or displayed it in search-result snippets. Rather than leading to genuine webpages, they redirected users through websites designed to generate revenue from online traffic, while technical services were used to conceal the identity of those responsible.
The Court found that the claimant had arguable claims in harassment and defamation. It also found that some of the defendant companies (which included the domain registrar and hosting provider) were sufficiently mixed up in the alleged wrongdoing, were likely to hold identifying information and that focused disclosure was necessary and proportionate. The Court therefore ordered them to disclose information identifying those responsible.
Comment
Complaints and criticism can be persistent and uncomfortable without necessarily being unlawful. However, when a campaign escalates into the sustained targeting of individuals as a means of exerting pressure on a company, or where anonymity is being used as a shield, these cases show that there can be effective legal remedies to identify those responsible, and to take action against them.
