The Legal Minefield of Investigating Tech: Insights from Our CEO

At the 2025 International Journalism Festival in Perugia, Media Defence CEO Carlos Gaio joined a panel discussion titled “When Removing Bylines Isn’t Enough: How Can Journalists Safely Investigate Tech in 2025?” (Watch in full below). The conversation explored the growing threats facing those who report on powerful technology companies — and the tools they can use to protect themselves. Drawing on Media Defence’s global legal work, Carlos offered a sobering look at the legal landscape for journalists and media outlets covering tech.

The Risks Are Rising — and Unevenly Distributed 

“The most powerful companies in the world today are tech companies,”  Carlos stated. “The risks for reporting on them have increased dramatically over the last decade.”

At Media Defence, the caseload reflects this shift. In 2021, we supported 110 new legal cases. By 2024, that number had more than doubled to 223 new cases in a single year. These cases span defamation lawsuits, SLAPPs, content takedowns, arbitrary arrests, and even killings.

And while journalists in Europe and the U.S. benefit from relatively strong legal protections, such as the First Amendment, the European Convention on Human Rights, the GDPR, and whistleblower directives, those in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and parts of Eastern Europe are significantly more exposed. These regions often lack strong press freedom laws, or, where such laws do exist, they are not effectively implemented – and they are also where many of the most dangerous investigations are taking place.

Jurisdictional Evasion: A Corporate Strategy 

One of the most sophisticated tactics Carlos described is the way tech companies manipulate jurisdictional boundaries to evade accountability.

“Their first line of defence is to say: You should sue us in California or in Ireland—that’s where we’re headquartered. Not in Kenya, not in Uruguay.”

By refusing to accept local jurisdiction, companies make it nearly impossible for affected journalists or victims of abuse to pursue justice in their own countries. With vast legal teams and resources, tech giants exploit this imbalance, leaving local reporters with steep legal costs and slim chances of winning in foreign courts.

New Tactics: Trade Secrets as a Legal Weapon 

Another growing concern: the rise of trade secret and intellectual property claims being used against journalists. Instead of confronting human rights violations or unethical practices, some tech companies are reframing investigations as breaches of commercial confidentiality – even when that reporting clearly serves the public interest.

“It shifts the discussion away from human rights – and into the domain of commercial law,”  Carlos warned. “That’s a very dangerous development.”

In these cases, companies argue that reporting on internal algorithms, surveillance systems, or business strategies constitutes theft of proprietary information, sidestepping public interest defences and democratic scrutiny.

Targeting Sources: Le Poulpe and Argentina’s Supreme Court Case

Beyond direct legal action, Media Defence has also observed efforts to undermine source protection – a cornerstone of investigative journalism.

In France, the small investigative outlet Le Poulpe, which covers the Rouen area and Normandy, was targeted after publishing a report about alleged environmental wrongdoing by a major local company. Instead of taking legal action against Le Poulpe directly, the company went to the commercial court in Rouen and obtained a secret order. This allowed bailiffs to search the emails of a rival company, which the firm claimed had shared information with the newspaper. The court permitted a search for specific keywords and internal emails – a dangerous precedent that bypassed press freedom safeguards in favour of commercial law. Le Poulpe only discovered months later, and indirectly, that it was being targeted by a legal procedure aimed at identifying its sources. This intentional use of commercial courts – which often lack familiarity with the legal protections afforded to journalism – represents a serious threat to source confidentiality and press freedom.

In Argentina, investigative journalist Santiago O’Donnell was sued by Mariano Macri, brother of former President Mauricio Macri, over his book, Brother: Mariano Macri’s Confession about the web of power, politics, business, and family behind his brother Mauricio. Following a request from Mariano Macri, a lower court ordered O’Donnell to submit copies of all interview recordings used in the writing of the book, citing precautionary grounds. O’Donnell’s legal team mounted a series of appeals and challenges to the ruling, arguing that only part of the material had been published and that disclosing the full recordings would jeopardise sources and reveal sensitive, unpublished content still under verification and intended for future use. They warned that such a decision could set a dangerous precedent for press freedom across the continent. After several failed appeals, they brought a rare challenge before the Supreme Court, supported by Media Defence. The Court unanimously accepted the appeal, overturned the lower court’s decision, and criticised the lack of justification for the original order — marking an important ruling. However, the case highlighted how legal systems can be weaponised to expose journalistic sources and intimidate reporters.

“These examples show that the threats aren’t always direct — they can come through the back door of commercial courts and procedural loopholes.”

The Personal Cost

Carlos concluded with a cautionary example: British journalist Carole Cadwalladr, who was sued by a prominent businessman not for an article — but for a TED Talk and a tweet. Though she ultimately avoided conviction, she was ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal costs.

“Even if you win, it can drain your resources and your attention. That’s very worrying.”

At Media Defence, we continue to support journalists around the world facing legal threats for their reporting. Our work includes emergency defence, strategic litigation, and long-term legal support to ensure journalists can hold power to account — especially in contexts where protections are weakest.

This session was part of Media Defence’s ongoing work to engage with journalists, legal experts, and human rights defenders on the front lines of press freedom.

Carlos spoke alongside journalist Karen Hao, AI reporter for The Atlantic and author of the upcoming Empire of AI, investigative reporter and founder of the Foundation for Investigative Journalism (Nigeria) ‘Fisayo Soyombo, in this session moderated by Alexandra Buccianti of Luminate, who sponsored the panel.

Learn more about our work  and how we support journalists globally.