Facebook
Britain's News Portal
Around The Clock
BREAKING
Loading latest headlines…

High Court awards £220,000 in 'pink slime' disinformation case

An Uzbek financier was awarded over £220,000 in damages and costs in a High Court case against an online newspaper identified as part of a 'pink slime' disinformation network.

  • Uzbek financier Ovik Mkrtchyan won more than £220,000 in damages and costs against the London Post.
  • The London Post is identified as part of a network of websites allegedly running paid-for smear campaigns.
  • One individual, referring to himself as "Anonymous watchman of the freedom of speech, retired," claimed to accept money from various international clients for publishing stories.

A High Court case this summer saw Uzbek financier Ovik Mkrtchyan awarded more than £220,000 in damages and costs. Mkrtchyan sued an online newspaper, the London Post, and its owner Viktor Tokarev, over a story he described as “salacious, grave and inherently likely to cause harm”. The London Post did not appear to defend the case.

The London Post is reportedly part of a network of apparently British local news websites, operating under the collective name 2Trom. This network's business model appears to involve accepting cash to publish detailed negative articles, alongside local news stories.

An individual claiming to run a 'pink slime' operation, who referred to himself as "Anonymous watchman of the freedom of speech, retired," stated he accepts money from clients including "lovely Kazakhs, Ukrainian oligarchs, and crypto gambling crooks from France, Germany or Israel" for publishing stories. He claimed, "We believe that money is equally as important as truth," and that "nobody will pursue the latter if it is unpaid."

One victim, referred to as Giles, described a three-year campaign against him that began with a story in a major British newspaper, followed by social media posts and emails to his investors. He stated that within a month, his name appeared in over 20 articles, some in countries he had never visited. Giles believes the campaign was intended to deter him from being a witness in a court case, which he ultimately won.

Why this matters: The High Court ruling highlights the legal consequences for entities involved in publishing unsubstantiated or harmful content as part of disinformation campaigns.

Related Articles

Get the news that matters.

Join thousands of readers getting the best of British news straight to their inbox.