18 July 2025
REGULATION: Hollyoaks ClearScore product placement breaches the Ofcom Broadcasting Code
Channel 4’s Hollyoaks has been found in breach of Ofcom’s product placement rules by making promotional references to ClearScore and giving undue prominence to the company and its app.
During the relevant episode, broadcast on 18 February 2025, one of the characters, Ste, said:
“I’m sure there was something I needed to do. Yep, I need to check my ClearScore app. Our Lucas [Ste’s son] wants a new laptop”.
At a later point in the episode Ste pulled out his smartphone showing his credit score in the ClearScore app. The app screen was then shown as a graphic appearing between the two characters and read:
“Welcome Ste”, with a link stating: “Offers for you”, “Purchase Credit Card”, “0% Interest” and “+ see more”.
Offers for three different credit cards appeared in the graphic and the app’s text read: “Credit cards”, “ClearScore is a credit broker, not a lender” and “Purchase cards”.
Under that was an image of each credit card on offer with information about the period for which the card would provide “0% interest on purchases”.
While using the app, Ste said: “See this? They’ve shown me some options – based on my financial situation – and – it looks like I can get you that laptop for your studies!” and “I really want you to make a go of this, Lucas – [gesturing to the ClearScore app] and these guys are going to help me make it happen!”
Ofcom noted that Hollyoaks regularly features images of smartphones, their use, the graphic of messages and the use of specific apps and so the way in which the app featured would have been in keeping with viewer expectations.
However, while there may have been sufficient editorial justification for referring to this way of obtaining credit, Ofcom considered that the material appeared to become a demonstration of how to use the app to obtain finance, distorted the storyline and distracted viewers’ attention away from the editorial content. As a result, the placed references were deemed to be unduly prominent in breach of Rule 9.10 of the Code.
Ofcom also considered that the references were promotional in breach of Rule 9.9. It said the episode showed offers that had been personalised to Ste, the offers detailed attractive selling points, such as 0% finance over fixed periods and personalised credit limits and Ste talked about how the app could provide a solution to his financial problems. In addition, Ofcom said that describing and showing details of how to use the app without sufficient editorial justification served only to promote the brand.
This decision is helpful in gaining a better understanding of how Ofcom’s interprets and applies the product placement rules and illustrates the difficult judgements broadcasters have to make about what may be compliant in particular situations.
REGULATION: BBC review concludes Gaza documentary breached accuracy guidelines
A review of Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone has concluded that the documentary breached the BBC’s guidelines on accuracy because it didn’t disclose that the narrator was the son of a Hamas official.
The internal review concluded that Hoyo Films, which made the programme, bears most of the responsibility for the failure – but the BBC should have also done more.
The review found that three members of production knew that the narrator’s father had been a deputy minister of agriculture in the Hamas-run government in Gaza – and although the company did not intentionally mislead the BBC it "… made a mistake, and should have informed the BBC about it”.
The father’s status was “critical information” and “Regardless of how the significance or otherwise of the narrator’s father’s position was judged, the audience should have been informed about this.”
The review found that no-one at the BBC knew about the identity of the narrator’s father before broadcast but the BBC also bears some responsibility for not being "sufficiently proactive" with its checks and for a "lack of critical oversight of unanswered or partially answered questions" before broadcast.
More broadly, the review concluded that the narrator's contribution did not constitute a breach of impartiality rules because it had seen no evidence "to support the suggestion that the narrator's father or family influenced the content of the programme in any way". However, the report concluded that the use of the child narrator was "not appropriate" in the circumstances.
The review also concluded that a fee of £795 had been paid to the narrator’s adult sister for his narration but this was not "outside the range of what might be reasonable in the context" – and checks confirmed that neither the boy nor his sister – nor anyone else involved – were subject to UK sanctions.
Ofcom has now said it will conduct its own investigation. In a statement, Ofcom said: "Having examined the BBC's findings, we are launching an investigation under our rule which states that factual programmes must not materially mislead the audience." zoom-in brief will report on its findings in due course.
DEFAMATION: BBC settles defamation claim brought by partner of murdered Irish school teacher
The partner of Ashling Murphy, the 23-year old teacher who was murdered by a Slovakian man in 2022 while jogging along a canal in the Republic of Ireland, has settled a defamation claim against the BBC.
Ryan Casey had claimed that a discussion on The View on 30 November 2023 - about the victim impact statement he had made after Jozef Puska was convicted of Ms Murphy’s murder - was defamatory of him.
Following the settlement, the BBC acknowledged Mr Casey’s personal tragedy but said in a statement that was read to the High Court in Dublin that it stood by its journalism which "debated serious issues of public interest".
It went on to clarify that “it does not consider Ryan Casey to be a criminal or a racist, or someone guilty of or attempting to incite hatred, or someone seeking to pose as a hero of the far right through his victim impact statement … This statement clarifies any unintentional inferences that could have been drawn from the broadcast and has enabled the BBC and Ryan Casey to resolve this matter amicably."
Mr Casey said he had sued the broadcaster “not solely out of anger, but out of a need for accountability and dignity for Ashling, for myself, our families, and for all victims who deserve to have their voices heard without such harsh criticism or judgement … I hope this serves as a reminder to all media organisations of the high level of responsibility that comes with running such public platforms”.
"This was never just about me, it was about truth, fairness, and decency."
"I now move forward, finally free to use my voice again, to honour Ashling and to advocate for the changes we desperately require in this country, for the increased safety measures we so clearly need, and for a society that listens to its people, free of gaslighting, blacklisting or censorship," he said.
"We all have a lot more in common than what separates us … Let's honour Ashling by building a better and safer Ireland, we all know we can do so much better."
As part of the settlement Mr Casey reportedly received substantial damages as well as a contribution towards his legal costs that amounted to a six-figure sum.
Abbas Media Law is a boutique law firm, specialising in advice to independent production companies and broadcasters. We are true experts in our field: all lawyers and advisors have in the past worked either in-house for broadcasters and/or production companies.
Accordingly, we fully understand production and the needs of our clients. We offer expert advice and representation on all programme content related matters (legal and regulatory), all aspects of business affairs, as well as complaints-handling and litigation. Visit www.abbasmedialaw.com or contact us directly at info@abbasmedialaw.com.