SEO Meta Description: IPSO’s 2025 Annual Report reveals two-thirds of UK press complaints resolved in favour of the public. Learn what this means for editorial standards, compliance, and publisher accountability in 2026.
Key Takeaways
| Key Point | Impact for Publishers |
|---|---|
| IPSO resolved 67% of complaints in favour of the public in 2025 | Publishers need stronger accuracy, privacy, and discrimination safeguards to reduce upheld complaints and regulatory risk |
| 6,534 total complaints received – one every 17 minutes | Editorial workload is increasing; robust complaint-handling processes are now essential operational infrastructure |
| 78% of complaints relate to accuracy breaches; 35% discrimination | Fact-checking workflows and diversity training are critical to compliance; failure costs reputation and regulatory attention |
| Express.co.uk received 1,366 complaints (rejected 97%); The Spectator 463 (all rejected) | High complaint volume doesn’t equal upheld breaches – transparent processes and robust defence bolster credibility |
| IPSO issued 45 privacy notices in 2025; published new user-generated content guidance | Publishers must update editorial policies on UGC sourcing and privacy; proactive compliance prevents regulatory enforcement |
| IPSO trained 800+ journalists and editors in 2025 | Industry-wide standards are rising; publishers investing in training see lower complaint rates and stronger audience trust |
| New guidance on reporting children released in 2025 | Specialised editorial policies for sensitive reporting categories reduce legal risk and demonstrate editorial responsibility |
Introduction
Press regulation isn’t static. Each year, IPSO-the Independent Press Standards Organisation-publishes its annual report detailing complaint volumes, upheld cases, emerging compliance issues, and industry guidance. The 2025 report, released mid-June 2026, paints a clear picture: UK publishers face increasing scrutiny, but those with strong editorial processes are winning most disputes.
For publishers, editors, and media executives, this report is essential reading. It reveals which publications attract the most complaints, why those complaints arise, and what IPSO is doing to strengthen industry standards. More importantly, it highlights what your publication needs to do to stay compliant, reduce regulatory risk, and maintain audience trust.
This article breaks down the key findings, explores what they mean for your editorial operations, and shows how publishers can use IPSO guidance to strengthen their compliance posture.
The Headline Numbers: Complaints Up, But Accuracy Remains the Core Issue
6,534 Complaints in 2025: One Every 17 Minutes
IPSO received 6,534 complaints and enquiries throughout 2025. That’s roughly one complaint every 17 minutes-a staggering volume that underscores the scale of public scrutiny facing UK publishers.
However, not all complaints warrant investigation. Of the 6,534 received, only 555 were formally investigated as in-remit complaints. The remainder fell into three categories: 5,729 complaints were outside IPSO’s remit (relating to matters the regulator cannot adjudicate), 140 complaints remain ongoing, and 110 were handled through advice, privacy notices, or proactive engagement. This distribution matters: it shows that whilst public concern is high, the volume of formally upheld breaches is substantially lower than raw complaint numbers suggest.
For publishers, this underscores a critical point: complaint volume is not failure. What matters is how you respond, how transparent you are, and whether your editorial processes can defend your decisions under scrutiny.
Accuracy, Discrimination, and Privacy: The Compliance Tripod
Complaint themes cluster around three core areas:
- Accuracy: 78% of complaints relate to accuracy breaches-articles containing factual errors, unverified claims, or misleading statements
- Discrimination: 35% relate to discriminatory language, harmful stereotyping, or unfair representation of protected groups
- Privacy: 19% relate to privacy intrusions; 21% relate to intrusion into grief or shock (often intertwined)
These three categories dominate for a reason: they sit at the intersection of public concern, legal liability, and audience trust. Publishers that address them systematically-through fact-checking workflows, editorial diversity training, and privacy policy refinement-see lower complaint rates and stronger audience confidence.
Publication-Specific Trends: What the Highest-Complaint Publications Tell Us
Express.co.uk and The Spectator Lead Complaint Charts-But Context Matters
Express.co.uk received 1,366 complaints in 2025-far more than any other publication. However, only 46 were upheld or partially upheld; the vast majority (1,320) were rejected, and 7 were not pursued by the complainant. This rejection rate (97%) is actually a sign of strong editorial defence: the publication’s processes withstand scrutiny.
The Spectator received 463 complaints-all of which were rejected. Again, high complaint volume reflects audience engagement and editorial boldness, not editorial failure.
The lesson for publishers is straightforward: complaint volume is not a measure of publication quality or compliance. Some publications attract more complaints because they publish more frequently, cover more controversial topics, or have engaged audiences willing to lodge concerns. What matters is the rejection rate-how many complaints are upheld-and whether your publication can defend its decisions.
Why High Complaint Volume Isn’t Necessarily Bad
Publishers often worry about complaint volume as a metric of reputational risk. In fact, the opposite can be true. Publications with strong editorial policies and clear reasoning attract complaints-because readers trust the outlet enough to engage with it formally. Publications that avoid complaints entirely may do so because they avoid difficult stories altogether.
For publishers using platforms like Publishrs to streamline editorial workflow, complaint management is part of that ecosystem. Robust publishing infrastructure allows you to document editorial decisions, track changes, and respond to complaints systematically-turning regulatory engagement from a liability into a demonstration of professionalism.
Emerging Compliance Priorities: UGC, Children, and Privacy Notice Trends
New IPSO Guidance on User-Generated Content and Children Reporting
IPSO released new guidance on two critical areas in 2025: reporting on children and sourcing user-generated content (UGC). Both represent evolving compliance challenges for publishers.
User-generated content-videos, images, and quotes from audience members-has become central to modern journalism. However, sourcing UGC creates specific risks: consent, verification, misrepresentation, and privacy are all potential flashpoints. IPSO’s new guidance sets clear standards for UGC sourcing, vetting, and attribution. Publishers must update their editorial policies to reflect this guidance.
Similarly, reporting on children has specific legal and ethical requirements. The new IPSO guidance reinforces best practices: age-appropriate language, parental consent where applicable, anonymisation where necessary, and sensitivity to trauma or exploitation risk.
Publishers that proactively integrate this guidance into their style guides and editorial workflows avoid complaints and demonstrate regulatory foresight to readers and advertisers alike.
Privacy Notices: IPSO’s Proactive Intervention Tool
IPSO issued 45 privacy notices in 2025-formal warnings to the industry against contacting specific individuals who have explicitly requested privacy (typically high-profile people, crime victims, or those in sensitive circumstances). Privacy notices are IPSO’s proactive tool for preventing harm before it occurs.
For publishers, privacy notices represent a clear regulatory signal: IPSO is watching, and it intervenes before complaints are filed if industry members attempt to breach privacy protections. This reinforces the importance of maintaining accurate privacy records and ensuring your team is aware of active privacy protections.
Training, Standards, and Industry Evolution
800+ Journalists Trained; Standards Rising Across the Industry
IPSO delivered training to over 800 journalists and journalism students throughout 2025. This training focuses on practical compliance: how to verify sources, handle sensitive topics, manage privacy, and respond to complaints fairly.
For publishers, this training uptake signals an important trend: industry-wide compliance standards are rising. Publications that invest in editorial training see fewer complaints, stronger audience trust, and clearer defence positions in disputes. Publishers that don’t risk falling behind in an increasingly scrutinised media landscape.
What This Means for Editorial Infrastructure
As compliance standards tighten and complaint volumes remain high, editorial infrastructure becomes a competitive advantage. Publishing platforms that help teams track editorial decisions, manage version control, and document reasoning create a clearer paper trail for regulatory defence. This isn’t bureaucracy-it’s professionalism.
Publishrs provides integrated workflow management that helps editorial teams document decisions, collaborate transparently, and respond to complaints systematically. When IPSO asks for your editorial reasoning, having that infrastructure in place isn’t just efficient-it demonstrates editorial rigour to regulators and readers alike.
What Publishers Should Do Now: A 5-Point Compliance Action Plan
1. Audit Your Accuracy Processes
With 78% of complaints relating to accuracy, this is the highest-ROI compliance investment. Review your fact-checking workflow, source verification standards, and correction procedures. Ensure every article can be defended with clear sourcing and verification steps.
2. Update Editorial Policy on UGC, Children, and Privacy
IPSO’s 2025 guidance is now live. Your editorial policy should explicitly reference this guidance, setting clear standards for how your publication handles user-generated content, reports on children, and protects privacy. Make this accessible to your entire newsroom.
3. Invest in Compliance Training
IPSO’s data shows that publications with trained journalists see fewer upheld complaints. Budget for annual training, covering accuracy, discrimination, privacy, and IPSO procedures. Make this part of onboarding for new hires.
4. Implement Privacy Monitoring Systems
Stay aware of active privacy notices and restricted topics in your area of coverage. Integrate privacy tracking into your editorial workflow so teams are alerted before a story risks violating a privacy protection.
5. Use Editorial Infrastructure to Document Decisions
When complaints arise, the first question is: can you explain and defend your editorial decision? Publishing platforms like Publishrs enable transparent version control, change tracking, and decision documentation. This infrastructure becomes your strongest defence in regulatory disputes.
Looking Ahead: What the 2025 Report Signals for 2026
IPSO’s 2025 Annual Report reveals a maturing regulatory environment. Complaint volumes remain high, but industry standards are rising, guidance is tightening, and publishers with strong processes are winning disputes. The publications attracting the most complaints-Express, Spectator-are also those that systematically defend their decisions and reject unfounded complaints at high rates.
For publishers navigating 2026, the message is clear: compliance isn’t a cost centre. It’s a competitive advantage. Publications with strong editorial processes, trained teams, and transparent infrastructure attract fewer upheld complaints, defend their decisions more effectively, and build stronger audience trust.
The tools to achieve this-robust editorial workflow, decision documentation, policy management, and team training-are increasingly available. Publishers that implement them now will find themselves ahead of the compliance curve in an industry where standards are tightening and public scrutiny is only increasing.
FAQ: IPSO Compliance and Publisher Standards
What does it mean when IPSO resolves a complaint in favour of the public?
It means IPSO’s investigation found that the publisher breached the Editors’ Code of Practice. The publisher must issue a correction or clarification, and IPSO publishes the adjudication. For publishers, this is reputationally costly-it signals editorial failure to regulators, competitors, and audiences.
Why do some publications receive far more complaints than others?
High complaint volume reflects several factors: frequency of publishing, coverage of controversial topics, size of audience, and level of public engagement. Express.co.uk publishes frequently and covers political/controversial topics, so it receives more complaints than niche publications. However, complaint volume is not a measure of editorial quality-rejection rate matters more.
What is a IPSO privacy notice, and why should publishers care?
A privacy notice is a formal warning from IPSO to the industry-typically issued on behalf of a high-profile individual or crime victim-requesting that press outlets not contact or publish about them. Breaching a privacy notice is a serious compliance violation. Publishers must track privacy notices relevant to their coverage areas and ensure teams are aware.
How can publishers reduce complaint volumes?
The most effective strategies: (1) Strengthen fact-checking and accuracy verification processes. (2) Implement diversity training to reduce discriminatory language. (3) Clarify privacy policies and ensure team awareness. (4) Invest in editorial infrastructure that documents decision-making. Publications that do these systematically see lower complaint rates.
What should publishers do if they receive a complaint from IPSO?
Take it seriously. Gather all editorial documentation, sourcing notes, and reasoning. Respond promptly and thoroughly to IPSO’s investigation. If the complaint is upheld, cooperate with the correction/clarification process. Having clear documentation and responsive processes improves your position in the investigation and demonstrates good faith compliance.
Does IPSO training really reduce complaints?
Yes. IPSO’s 2025 report shows that publications whose teams have completed IPSO training see measurably lower complaint rates and higher rejection rates (fewer upheld breaches). Training reinforces best practices on accuracy, discrimination, privacy, and complaint response procedures. It’s an investment that pays dividends in reduced regulatory friction.
How can we use IPSO guidance to improve our editorial policy?
IPSO publishes specific guidance on major compliance themes-children reporting, UGC sourcing, privacy, accuracy-on its website. Update your editorial policy to directly reference IPSO guidance on these topics, setting specific standards for your teams. Make this policy accessible and ensure training covers it. Doing so demonstrates regulatory foresight and reduces complaint risk.
What publishing tools can help us manage IPSO compliance?
Editorial platforms like Publishrs provide workflow management, version control, decision documentation, and team collaboration features. These tools help you track editorial reasoning, manage revisions transparently, and respond systematically to complaints. When regulators ask for your editorial documentation, having this infrastructure in place strengthens your defence position.
Closing
IPSO’s 2025 Annual Report is essential reading for any publisher. It reveals emerging compliance priorities, signals industry trends, and shows which publications are winning regulatory disputes. The common thread: those with strong editorial processes, trained teams, and transparent infrastructure.
As complaint volumes remain high and standards tighten, compliance is no longer a back-office function. It’s a strategic competitive advantage. Publishers that invest in accuracy workflows, team training, policy documentation, and editorial infrastructure now will find themselves ahead of regulatory trends and stronger in audience trust.
To learn how Publishrs helps publishers streamline editorial workflow and manage compliance at scale, explore our platform features and case studies. Strong editorial processes start with infrastructure that supports transparency, accountability, and team collaboration.
