Litigation Support against SLAPP Suits

Situation

Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) actions are deployed as an intimidation tool by powerful corporations. The inequality of resources for those defending themselves against a legal challenge leads to the suppression of discussion and enforcement action. ILP’s lawyers continue to fight for society’s right to information so that wrongdoers can be held to account. In 2023, an artist named ODEE, published an artwork called “We’re Sorry”, which directly addresses the unethical practices of the Icelandic fishing giant Samherji. Samherji was implicated in the infamous “Fishrot” scandal, relating to bribery, corruption and exploitation in Namibia. The artwork featured an apology which took full responsibility for Samherji’s alleged criminality in Namibia, pledged full cooperation with investigating authorities, and promised to return illicitly acquired profits to the nation. Media outlets subsequently sought responses from Samherji, which issued its own press release disavowing the apology, and filed a claim against ODEE in the UK courts for trademark infringement, malicious falsehood and associated damages, outside his country of residence. Samherji has been engaged in a multi-year campaign of intimidation against the whistleblower who revealed the corruption allegations, journalists, and civil society to avoid scrutiny.

ILP’s Action

ILP urgently mobilised defence lawyers to represent ODEE so that his artwork detailing the severe human, societal and economic impact of the corporation’s alleged activities can continue to stimulate public discourse, particularly while authorities in Namibia and Iceland are investigating bribery and tax evasion.

Impact

So far, ILP’s lawyers have been successful in securing a judgment to reduce and postpone financial damages of hundreds of thousands of pounds sought by the Samherji and filed an appeal to the claim. The artwork has received coverage from hundreds of news outlets worldwide and continues to spark active debate on social media. This ruling has profound implications for freedom of expression, particularly regarding the ability of artists, journalists, and activists to critique corporate wrongdoing. If allowed to stand, it risks setting a dangerous precedent that may deter public debate and chill creative expression worldwide.