We have published an updated review of the Independent Press Standards Organisation’s (IPSO) complaints process and related issues, concluding that IPSO does not provide the public with effective protection from press harm.
The report builds on our January 2024 review of IPSO’s complaints process and May 2024 follow-up report on IPSO rulings. It draws on the latest published complaints data, rulings, annual reports and public statements, including IPSO’s recently published 2025 Annual Report.
Key findings
Our review reinforces our view that IPSO continues to operate a narrow complaints-handling model rather than an effective and independent system of press regulation. Its limited approach to complaints, investigations, remedies and sanctions means it continues to act as a de facto trade body rather than a regulator.
The report finds that:
- in 2023, 2024 and 2025, fewer than 1% of complaints recorded by IPSO resulted in a finding that the Editors’ Code had been breached;
- only a small proportion of complaints are formally investigated, with most rejected and a minority resolved or settled before there is any public finding on whether the Editors’ Code has been breached;
- IPSO has still never launched a standards investigation or issued a fine, and it does not have the power to require a publisher to apologise; and
- IPSO continues to place too much burden on individual complainants to pursue complaints and provide evidence of harm.
In 2023, IPSO recorded 7,876 complaints rejected or assessed, of which 364 were investigated, and 52 were upheld at a hearing, meaning IPSO found at least one breach of the Editors’ Code. In 2024, it recorded 6,524 complaints rejected or assessed, of which 307 were investigated, and 43 were upheld at a hearing. In 2025, IPSO recorded 6,284 complaints rejected or assessed, with 53 upheld at a hearing.
We also examined IPSO’s claim in its 2025 Annual Report that 68% of investigations resulted in a “favourable outcome for complainants”. This figure relates only to complaints investigated by IPSO, not to complaints received overall. Even accepting all settlements with publishers as “favourable” outcomes, upheld complaints and settlements together accounted for less than 4% of all complaints recorded by IPSO in 2025.
IPSO also reported an increase in investigated complaints in 2025, but this figure included 191 complaints recorded as “not lead”, a category not included in previous years’ figures. Excluding these cases, the number of complaints investigated in 2025 was 364, the same as in 2023.
We do not consider that these figures show the public is better protected. Our report raises concerns that IPSO applies the Editors’ Code of Practice too narrowly and fails to provide an effective deterrent to serious or repeated press misconduct.
Chair’s comment
Kathryn Cearns OBE, Chair of the Press Recognition Panel, said:
“An effective press regulator must do more than process complaints. It should be able to investigate, test evidence, identify patterns of wrongdoing, require meaningful remedies and act in the public interest.
“Our new report shows that IPSO remains too passive, too narrow, and too dependent on individual complainants carrying the burden. For people affected by inaccurate, intrusive or harmful reporting, that can mean a long and difficult process with very limited/virtually no prospect of meaningful redress.
“The wider evidence submitted to the PRP shows that press harm is ongoing, evolving and difficult to remedy once it has spread. Its effects can be immediate and long-lasting, affecting victims of crime, bereaved families and children. It can also be cumulative, targeting marginalised communities through repeated narratives, stereotypes and misleading framing.
“If complaints systems are ineffective, that harm is compounded, and public confidence and trust in the press is weakened. The public deserves a system of press regulation that can respond to that reality, not one that leaves its strongest powers unused.”
Why this matters
Evidence from our 10th Annual Report on the Recognition System showed that people and communities continue to experience harm through inaccurate, intrusive or discriminatory reporting. That harm can be amplified online, while wider patterns of coverage can perpetuate and reinforce damaging narratives about already marginalised groups.
Weak complaints systems compound that harm. The evidence highlighted the burden placed on ordinary members of the public trying to pursue complaints through IPSO, delays in securing redress, and remedies that may be weak or insufficiently prominent.
The updated review also raises concerns about a recent amendment to IPSO’s regulations that expands the circumstances in which IPSO can reject complaints without writing to the complainant to explain its decision. We consider that this risks reducing transparency for complainants and may limit their practical ability to understand the decision, challenge IPSO’s reasoning or seek a review.
The Recognition System
We conclude that IPSO does not provide an effective deterrent against serious or repeated bad behaviour by the press. The Recognition System provides the framework for such a deterrent through independent regulation, free from both government and press industry control, with proper investigatory powers, meaningful sanctions and independently assessed standards. However, it remains underused while most major publishers continue to operate outside it.
We are therefore encouraging news publishers to join a recognised independent regulator, reform existing bodies so they meet the Charter criteria, or come together to form new bodies that can seek recognition. The important question is how participation in effective, independent regulation can be encouraged, so that press freedom is protected and the public has meaningful protection from press harm, with accessible routes to redress when things go wrong.
Read the full report: A review of IPSO’s complaints process and related issues – May 2026 update
