How has IPSO adjudicated accuracy complaints against the Daily Mail since 2015?
Executive summary
Since 2015 IPSO has repeatedly adjudicated against the Daily Mail and its online arm MailOnline for breaches of the Editors’ Code — most commonly Clause 1 (Accuracy) and related provisions — while also drawing criticism for inconsistent outcomes and what some see as limited deterrence [1] [2] [3] [4]. Concrete rulings show IPSO both upholding complaints and prescribing public remedies, but critics argue the regulator too often excuses or narrowly frames contested reporting, especially on topics such as climate [5] [6] [7].
1. IPSO has upheld multiple accuracy complaints against the Daily Mail since 2015, often requiring published corrections
IPSO’s public rulings and the Mail’s own reporting of those rulings record a string of upheld accuracy complaints: for example, The Mail on Sunday was found to have “failed to take care” in reporting a policy document and was required to publish an adjudication in 2019 for breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) [1], MailOnline had an IPSO adjudication upheld after an inaccurate quote attributed to Martin Clunes [2], and a 2024 complaint about reporting of crime was upheld with the regulator explicitly critical of the publication’s handling and delays [3].
2. The cases reveal recurring patterns: accuracy, reporting of crime, and procedural failings
A clear pattern emerges from the sample of rulings: many complaints involve failures to take care over factual claims (Clause 1), improper handling of crime reporting (Clause 9) or inaccurate attribution of quotes, and procedural problems such as late or inadequate corrections that influence IPSO’s decisions — for instance IPSO cited MailOnline’s delay in offering a correction and further delays during the IPSO process when upholding the 2023–24 crime reporting complaint [3] [2] [1].
3. IPSO’s prescribed remedies are public adjudications and corrective publication requirements
When IPSO upholds complaints it typically requires publication of the adjudication as a remedy and may stipulate how prominently it should appear — a precedent set in rulings requiring news-page publication and homepage placement for certain upheld complaints [5]. Associated Newspapers’ own IPSO-facing materials acknowledge that adjudications may require remedial action such as publication of a correction, and note that IPSO does not award financial compensation [8].
4. Quantities and context: MailOnline leads in complaint volume and upheld breaches in recent years, but interpretation is contested
Press reporting and publisher statements indicate MailOnline was the subject of hundreds of complaints in single years and recorded several upheld breaches — for example Press Gazette reported MailOnline had the most Editors’ Code breaches in 2022 and that it published hundreds of articles subject to IPSO complaints [4]. At the same time commentators and academic critics argue IPSO too rarely rules against the Mail on certain issues — notably climate reporting — contending IPSO often treats disputed assertions as opinion and declines to uphold complaints [6] [7].
5. Criticisms of IPSO’s effectiveness and the Daily Mail’s internal corrections practises complicate the picture
Beyond headline rulings, critics point to structural issues: IPSO is funded by member newspapers, a fact raised by commentators as a potential conflict when assessing regulation [6], while the Daily Mail emphasizes internal corrections channels and cooperation with IPSO — its pages repeatedly invite inaccuracy reports and describe a Readers’ Editor route and corrections email [9] [10]. IPSO itself has on occasion required internal reviews of a publisher’s complaints handling where delays influenced the outcome, signaling regulatory concern as well as limitations [3].
6. Conclusion: mixed enforcement with tangible wins but persistent doubts about scope and consistency
Since 2015 IPSO has definitively upheld accuracy and related complaints against the Daily Mail on numerous occasions and imposed publication-based remedies, demonstrating that the regulator can and does enforce the Editors’ Code [1] [2] [3] [5]. However, frequent high complaint volumes, selective outcomes on contentious topics, and critiques about procedural consistency and funding structures leave the overall picture contested: IPSO’s decisions produce concrete remedies in many cases, yet debates persist about whether those remedies and the regulator’s standards are stringent or consistent enough to curb recurring problems with accuracy in the Daily Mail’s reporting [4] [6] [7].