Corrections Policy

Requests are welcome from:

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

You do not need to be a Research Member to ask for a correction.

A request can concern any of these:

We look at what a challenge actually claims and what supports it.

If you dispute an official record, a court document or a regulator’s finding, please send reliable material showing why our account is wrong or out of date. We may verify what you send independently.

Forged, altered or misleading documents may be rejected and handled under the law and our policies.

A request may be checked against:

Researchers, editors or lawyers carry out further checks where needed before we decide.

Once we confirm that:

• charges were dropped or dismissed;
• someone was acquitted;
• a judgment was overturned;
• a regulator withdrew a finding;
• a sanctions or warning listing was lifted; or
• another important decision changed,

the record is reviewed, and the update is given prominence in proportion to the original reporting and the size of the change.

An acquittal is never left buried beneath an old accusation.

Settlements are described by what they actually say.

Where it matters, the record notes whether liability was admitted, denied, expressly not admitted or left open. We do not call a settlement an admission unless the documents support it.

Something accurate when published can be overtaken by events. Then we may keep the history and add the later development where readers will see it:

The point is to stop an old record giving a false impression of where things stand today.

When a correction changes what a record means, we may add a notice explaining:

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

Small spelling, grammar, formatting or style fixes do not normally need a formal notice.

See the corrections log

As a matter develops, its grade can move. Three common examples:

A grade changes because the case or the evidence really changed — never as a matter of editorial taste.

We may decline a request where the record remains fairly and accurately supported by the evidence. A subject’s disagreement does not, on its own, make our reporting inaccurate.

Where credible evidence is genuinely contested, we may set out both positions rather than adopt either one as fact.

Accurate reporting is not removed simply because it is:

Equally, nothing stays up just because it is negative. Removal or restriction may be considered for reasons such as:

• the wrong person was identified;
• information is materially false;
• a material claim can no longer be supported;
• a binding legal obligation;
• a reporting restriction;
• disproportionate personal detail;
• a serious failure to authenticate a source; or
• another compelling legal or editorial reason.

Each request is decided on its own merits.

There is no charge to correct information we find to be materially wrong.

We accept no payment, gift, favour, membership fee or other benefit to hide or alter an otherwise accurate record. Research Members may get professional help preparing supporting material, but membership has no effect on the outcome.

Evidence decides — nothing else.

A correction here does not instantly change search caches, other databases, web archives, screenshots or copies others have made.

Where technically and legally appropriate, we may update our own metadata or ask search engines to re-index after a material correction. We cannot guarantee changes to content others control.

No one is treated worse editorially for asking for a correction, instructing a lawyer, disputing our reporting or exercising a legal right.

Equally, involving a lawyer does not exempt a record from review.

Depending on where you are and the facts, you may have legal rights concerning inaccurate personal data, privacy, reputation, court reporting or data processing — for example under [APPLICABLE DATA PROTECTION LAW] or [APPLICABLE DEFAMATION LAW].

Whether a given right or exemption applies depends on the circumstances and the jurisdiction. Nothing here limits rights or duties that the law does not allow us to exclude.

Lawyers can make requests for their clients. We may ask for reasonable confirmation that they are authorised to act.

A demand from a lawyer does not prove an error — and a lawyer’s involvement is never a reason to ignore credible evidence that a correction is due.

We may review a record when:

• new evidence comes to light;
• a case moves forward;
• a judgment is handed down;
• an appeal concludes;
• a regulator changes its position;
• a source is discredited;
• a subject sends important documents; or
• we notice a possible error ourselves.

A published record stays answerable to the evidence behind it.