Relationships

In Mohareb v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited [2017] NSWSC 288 McCallum J refers to an asserted imputation in defamation litigation that 'The plaintiff is such an evil man that he is probably related to Satan'. 

Fairfax argued that 'the imputation is drawn from material falling in the category of propositions that it is impossible for the reader to take literally'. 

 The judgment states 

 It is trite principle that an imputation must specify with clarity and precision an act or condition allegedly attributed to the plaintiff by the defamatory matter complained of. The importance of that task derives from the fact that it is the imputation that defines the issues in the proceedings, in particular informing some of the defences under the Defamation Act. The definition of the issues in turn informs the interlocutory processes of discovery and interrogatories (where allowed) and the scope and course of the trial. Finally, the specificity of the imputation is important at the stage of assessment of damages which, in accordance with the terms of the Defamation Act, is undertaken by the judge. 

It should go without saying in that context that, implicitly, the requirement for clarity and precision in the specification of an imputation assumes that the imputation will be something capable (in theory) of being true. That is where I understood Mr Richardson's submission to land. An imputation based on material which it is impossible for the reader to take literally will, in all likelihood, not be capable of being factually true or false. 

Mr Rasmussen, who appears for the plaintiff, did not take issue with any of those propositions but, as I understood his submissions, sought to defend the imputation on the basis that it does not fail that test. Specifically, he submitted that many people believe Satan is not a mythical character and that he (Satan, not Mr Rasmussen) is in fact the progenitor of all evil. 

I would respectfully understand those propositions to be matters of faith, not fact. But even if that is wrong, the imputation is not capable of being literally true, in that it seeks to attribute the plaintiff with being "probably related to Satan". Whatever belief one has as to the status of Satan, the proposition that a human being could be related to him is one I am comfortably satisfied is incapable of being literally true. It is an attribution of shared genetic material, the impossibility of which does not turn on the existence or otherwise of any god or devil. It is not capable of being literally true and that is its vice. That imputation will be struck out.

Identification and Identity Offences

'Identification in EU Data Protection Law' by David Erdos comments 

Although the new EU data protection framework includes new pan-European limits based on notions of non-identification, these provisions cannot be construed in a sweeping or linear fashion. Non-identified data can only include information which is not being used to target a specific individual on- or offline and which does not readily and manifestly enable such pinpointing. Although GDPR controllers cannot generally be obliged to render such data identified, they must stand ready to do so to facilitate reactive subject rights. However, they have no design obligation to ensure this is easy. Identifying or authenticating whether a particular individual is a specific data subject and considering whether other data subjects are also linked to the information are separately regulated. With the exception of the GDPR rights to data portability and a copy of personal data, the latter is in principle left to national derogation. Regarding the former, both the GDPR and LED allow controllers to require further information where reasonably required to identify a claimant of reactive rights. However, controllers retain a fundamental duty to organise their processing to secure data obligations and rights. Controllers can generally only resist reactive rights claims where they can positively demonstrate that the request is manifestly excessive.

Late last year in Victorian Legal Services Board v Razos (Legal Practice) (Corrected) [2020] VCAT 1304 the Tribunal considered a disqualification order - for an indefinite period - regarding paralegal Athena Razos. It states

 the respondent has at various times been known by the aliases listed at Schedule 1 below. ... 

Schedule 1: Aliases 

Athena Ligris Zizzi 

Athena Athina Bouzas; 

Athena Katherine Bouzas-Legris; 

Athena Legris; Athina Ligris; 

Teena Ligris; Tina Ligris; 

Athina Zissi 

Athina Zissiadis; 

Teena Zissiadis; 

Zissiadis; 

Teena Zissiadis Ligris; and 

Tina Zissiadis-Ligris.

In providing Reasons VCAT states 

 Disqualification of individuals (other than practitioners) 

(1) The designated tribunal may, on the application of the designated local regulatory authority, make an order disqualifying a person who is an individual (other than an Australian legal practitioner) for the purposes of this Law, for a specified period or indefinitely, if satisfied that— (a) a ground for making the order under this section has been established (see subsection (2)); and (b) the disqualification is justified. 

(2) Any of the following are grounds for disqualifying a person— (a) that the person has been convicted of a serious offence; (b) that the person is not a fit and proper person to be employed or paid in connection with the practice of law or to be involved in the management of a law practice; (c) that the person was formerly an Australian legal practitioner and has, when an Australian legal practitioner, been guilty of conduct that constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct; (d) that the person has been guilty of conduct that, if the person were an Australian legal practitioner, would have constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct; (e) that the person could be disqualified under sections 206C–206F of the Corporations Act from managing a law practice if the law practice were a corporation. 

The grounds here are that Ms Razos has been convicted of a serious offence, in fact multiple serious offences, and is guilty of conduct which, if she were an Australian legal practitioner would have constituted professional misconduct. She has engaged in fraud and theft, including while employed in law practices. Ms Razos consents to the order, although she has sought suppression of publication of the order and any information about the reasons for it. ... 

My orders attach an agreed schedule of 14 other names by which Ms Razos has been known, which was itself attached to the minutes of consent order filed last year. I note that the convictions referred to below were in three different names: Tina Zissiadis-Ligris (2000 conviction) Athina Zissi (2007 conviction); and Athina Ligris (2009 conviction) 

... Ms Razos has advised that Zissiadis is her maiden name which she still uses and Ligris and Razos are married names. Whatever the reason for the use of so many different names, I am satisfied that the purposes of an order under s 119 are served by including the schedule in my orders and these reasons. 

In the following section, I have re-ordered the agreed facts so that the most recent conduct – misappropriation of over $1,000,000 from trust monies while working as a paralegal at a law practice between 2016-2017 – is set out first. The criminal convictions are dated 2000, 2007 and 2009 respectively. 

It underlines what I consider to be a continuing risk posed by Ms Razos if she were ever to be employed in a law practice again. My view is that this conduct, of itself, would justify the disqualification order, as would the criminal offending set out below. If she had been an Australian legal practitioner, it would constitute the most serious professional misconduct, misconduct at common law, warranting strike off from the roll of practitioners. 

Ms Athena Razos is not and has not at any time been an Australian legal practitioner. However, between 1984 and 2017, Ms Razos was employed in the following roles within the legal profession:

Secretary at Mallesons Stephen Jacques (1984) to 1988); Legal secretary at Minter Ellison. (1990 to 1988); Law clerk at Legal Finance and Business Matters (2002 to 2004); Senior secretary at Freehills (2004 to 2008); Senior conveyancer at Professional Legal Group (2007 to 2008); and Paralegal at Moray & Agnew (2008 to 2017). 

Misappropriation of trust funds 

While Ms Razos was employed as a paralegal with Moray & Agnew, her role involved the management of conveyancing matters and she was responsible for directing Moray & Agnew’s accounts department to bank deposit monies that were to be held on trust by the law practice pending settlement and allocate the receipted funds to clients’ trust ledgers. 

Between April 2016 and July 2017, Ms Razos used trust monies totalling $1,051,063 for her own benefit. These funds were obtained by providing false and/or misleading documents in support of unauthorised payments out of the Moray & Agnew trust account: into a trust ledger in her own name, with those funds subsequently paid out at her direction; into bank accounts controlled by her; to third parties as payment for goods and services procured by her; and to third parties as payment of costs and/or expenses associated with her own residential property. 

During this period, Ms Razos also: made unauthorised transfers of funds between trust ledgers in respect of different client files, making up the shortfall caused by the funds paid out as above; and overpaid clients from funds in trust, stating that the additional money had been earned in interest on the funds invested on the clients’ behalf, when in fact the funds had not been invested and no interest had been earned. Ms Razos has since repaid the law practice amounts totalling $1,103,157 including amounts for lost interest and costs resulting from the above conduct. 

Criminal Offending 

On 7 September 2000, under the name of ‘Tina Zissiadis-Ligris’, Ms Razos was convicted of the following offences:

• one count of theft; 

• 17 counts of obtaining property by deception 

• one count of making a false document to the prejudice of another person; and 

• one count of using a copy of a false document. 

By way of sentence, Ms Razos was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment (wholly suspended for 12 months), placed on a 12-month Community Corrections Order and ordered to pay $81,192.46 in compensation. Subsequently, while working at the law practice Freehills, Ms Razos stole amounts from petty cash totalling $16,346.60. 

As a result, on 6 August 2007, Ms Razos was convicted of the following offences under the name of ‘Athina Zissi’ and ordered to pay compensation: 

• 61 counts of obtaining property by deception; and 

• 141 counts of theft. 

On 8 May 2009, Ms Razos was convicted of further offences relating to conduct occurring between 1992 and 2003. Convictions were recorded under the name of ‘Athina Ligris’ in relation to the following offences:

• seven counts of making a false document to the prejudice of another person; 

• seven counts of using a false document to the prejudice of another person; 

• two counts of attempting to obtain property by deception; 

• two counts of obtaining property by deception; and 

• nine counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception. 

For these offences, Ms Razos was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment (with 1 year being suspended for a period of 18 months) and ordered to pay $5,081.08 in compensation. 

Ms Razos ’ conduct leading to the 2009 conviction occurred both before and after the first Magistrates’ Court conviction and involved:

• forging her husband’s signature on a Transfer of Land in respect of jointly-owned property; 

• forging the signatures of her husband and a solicitor as witness (who did not exist) on documents relating to a mortgage over jointly-owned property; 

• applying for a credit card in her husband’s name, in respect of which a debt of $38,957.25 was written off by the bank; 

• forging her husband’s signature in respect of a ‘direct debit authority’ for payment of insurance premiums; 

• forging her husband’s signature and that of a witnessing solicitor (who did not exist) on an affidavit filed in the County Court of Victoria; obtaining an amount of $12,000 from the ANZ bank by a fraudulent credit card application in the name of ‘Athina’ K Bouzas Legris’; 

• incurring debts of $3,231.83 on a credit card in the name of a third party, without that person’s knowledge or consent; 

• writing fraudulent cheques to herself, drawn on accounts in the names of third parties, which were subsequently dishonoured; 

• forging her husband’s signature on government documents in order to access his superannuation benefit of $2,545.87; and 

• using cheques to pay for goods, services and cash advances to the value of $3,258.41, which were dishonoured.

Duty

The 72 page 'A Duty of Loyalty for Privacy Law' by Neil M. Richards and Woodrow Hartzog comments 

Data privacy law fails to stop companies from engaging in self-serving, opportunistic behavior at the expense of those who trust them with their data. This is a problem. Modern tech companies are so entrenched in our lives and have so much control over what we see and click that the self-dealing exploitation of people has now become a major element of the Internet’s business model. 

Academics and policymakers have recently proposed a possible solution: require those entrusted with peoples’ data and online experiences to be loyal to those who trust them. But critics and companies have concerns about a duty of loyalty. What, exactly, would such a duty of loyalty require? What are the goals and limits of such a duty? Should loyalty mean obedience or a pledge to make decisions in peoples’ best interests? What would the substance of the rules implementing the duty look like? 

In this article, we offer a theory of loyalty based upon the risks of digital opportunism in information relationships. Data collectors bound by this duty of loyalty would be obligated to act in the best interests of people exposing their data and online experiences, up to the extent of their exposure. They would be prohibited from designing digital tools and processing data in a way that conflicts with a trusting parties’ best interests. This duty could also be used to set rebuttable presumptions of disloyal activity and act as an interpretive guide for other duties. A duty of loyalty would be a revolution in data privacy law. That’s exactly what is needed to break the cycle of self-dealing ingrained into the current Internet. This Article offers one pathway for us to get there.

UK Animal Tagging

The UK government has launched a consultation about mandatory microchipping of cats, alongside three separate mandatory scanning proposals. Tuk’s Law would make it mandatory for vets to scan cats and dogs for microchips before putting them down; Fern’s Law  would require vets to microchip cats and dogs when brought into a vet practice for the first time; and Gizmo’s Legacy would make it mandatory to scan for microchips when a cat or dog is found dead by the roadside. 

The government states that over a quarter of the UK’s pet cats aren’t microchipped, 'meaning that up to 2.6 million cats will benefit from the new measures'.  Since compulsory dog microchipping was introduced in 2016 around nine million dogs are now microchipped.

In discussing the dog regime the consultation paper states 

 All adverse reactions to microchips, including failed and migrated microchips (those that move within the animal) must be reported to the Secretary of State via the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. The latest data on adverse reactions in dogs from 2019 shows that there were a total of 354 reactions reported out of 540,000 dogs microchipped that year. 98% of reported cases were instances where the microchip had failed or migrated, rather than where implantation had caused health issues. 

In order that dogs are microchipped in a satisfactory way, minimum standards are set for microchips, and for the databases in which the keeper’s details are recorded (see paragraph 18). There are also minimum qualifications for those people who implant microchips. The 2015 Regulations require keepers to register their own details, including name, address, telephone number, and their dog’s details, including name, age and description of dog, and microchip number, on a compliant database. Failure by a keeper to register the dog on a compliant database or to keep their details up to date is an offence under the 2015 Regulations. 

The cost of microchipping a dog varies but it is generally between £15 to £30. Database operators offer different packages but may charge keepers to update a record. 

The 2015 Regulations also set requirements for the databases who register the dogs and their keepers. Databases must:

• have sufficient electronic capacity to store the keepers’ details; 

• back up the data to a secure off-site facility every day; 

• provide information to an authorised person (e.g. Defra, local authority, police); 

• provide information to a registered keeper about their dog; 

• have a system for identifying authorised persons; 

• have a system for identifying keepers of registered dogs; 

• maintain records to demonstrate that they are complying with the 2015 Regulations; 

• have a system for answering the telephone and responding to online requests; 

• be able to redirect online and telephone requests relating to dogs whose details are recorded on other databases; and 

• make available to other database operators the necessary information that allows other databases to determine which microchip numbers are recorded on their database. 

. There are currently 15 compliant databases that register dogs in England. Anyone enquiring about the registration of a microchip number can simply type the microchip number into any one of the compliant databases’ internet-based search facilities, or ‘lookup tools’, and the result will display the name of the database to which the number is registered.

Consumer Activism

'Consumer Activism: From the Informed Minority to the Crusading Minority' by Yonathan A. Arbel and Roy Shapira in (2019) 69 DePaul Law Review 233 comments 

Legal scholars have long recognized that market norms are respected not only because of consumer protection laws, but also because of internal market dynamics. Consumers, the argument goes, fend for themselves and hold sellers accountable. But how exactly do consumers discipline sellers? The most influential model has been the informed minority theory, according to which a critical mass of informed consumers reads and negotiates contracts in advance, thereby pressuring sellers to offer better contracts to all consumers. Recent empirical studies, however, cast doubt on the existence of such a mass, leading many to view the informed minority theory as unrealistic. What, then, may explain bottom-up governance in a world where consumers do not read contracts? In this contribution to the Clifford Symposium, we aim at exposing a different mechanism of market discipline: one that works not through ex ante readingand negotiating, but ratherthrough ex post pressuresto meet buyers' expectations. We specifically emphasize the role of a small subset of consumers that we dub "nudniks." Nudniks are those consumers who call in to complain, fill out satisfaction surveys, post online reviews, and file lawsuits. Driven by an innate sense of justice and atypical motivations, these nudniks act as crusading consumers against underperforming sellers. Through their actions, nudniks direct attention to seller failure, leading to a variety of formal and informal sanctions, thus presentinga more realisticform of consumer activism in today's overwhelming information environment. 

Market discipline comes not only from legal protections, but also from consumers themselves. Understanding the effectiveness of consumer-driven market discipline mechanisms is key, as it dictates the scope and design of legal interventions. 

The leading theory of market-based discipline has traditionally been the informed minority theory.' The theory concedes that most consumers lack sophistication or time to read their contracts and shop for better terms. Yet, it suggests that consumer-based governance of market discipline can be powerful. As long as a minority of consumers are engaged with these aspects of the transaction, one could still expect sellers to provide favorable terms. Sellers would compete over who wins the segment of informed buyers, and in the process will have to modify their standard form contracts in ways that benefit the entire consumer body, or so the theory goes. While enjoying large influence, over the years, the informed minority theory has encountered increasing opposition. Perhaps most critically, recent empirical evidence suggests that the number of consumers that actually read and understand contracts is too low to justify a change in sellers' behavior. Even the theory's progenitors now seem to question its practicality. This has left a gap in our understanding of market discipline through consumer governance: If market discipline does not come from a critical mass of informed readers, where does it come from? 

This Essay suggests looking elsewhere: Instead of focusing on buyers who read and negotiate before the purchase, focus on buyers who feel compelled to respond strongly whenever sellers disappoint. Instead of focusing on avid readers, focus on avid "enforcers" - those consumers who demand to speak with the manager, fill out satisfaction surveys, post online reviews, and file lawsuits. We dub these consumers "nudniks." Nudniks do not operate like most of us. They possess an innate sense of justice, atypical motivations, and an idiosyncratic cost structure, which lead them to fight sellers who disappoint - even in situations where most of us would not notice, or notice and stay passive. Nudniks are often perceived as petty and vindictive. Yet, through their actions, nudniks provide an important public service: directing attention to failures in the market, thus leading to a variety of formal and informal sanctions against misbehaving firms. In other words, nudniks generate underappreciated spillover effects that reverberate throughout the economy. This Essay explores the role of nudniks in the enforcement of market norms and consumer governance, evaluates their social contribution, and suggests this "crusading minority" of nudniks as a missing piece in theories of consumer market governance. 

This Essay argues that consumer activism predicated on a crusading minority of nudniks, who notice seller misbehavior and respond to it through legal-reputational channels, is a more realistic depiction of how market discipline works than the informed minority theory. Nudniks complain and fight sellers publicly regardless of whether they read the contract in advance. They often complain based on their transactional expectations from the seller. And transactional expectations are a function not only of the explicit terms in the contract, but also of sellers' oral representations, advertisements, market norms, fairness standards, and so on.8 Even if the seller is contractually protected by a disclaimer nestled in the fine print, she will anticipate the potential risk that comes from entering a public battle with nudniks and may find it best to deliver better service ex ante. 

Such a nudnik-driven mode of consumer activism creates positive spillovers, but also comes with social costs. Some nudniks pursue narrow interests that do not benefit the rest of the consumer body and impose unnecessary costs on sellers. While we do not venture to offer a conclusive quantification of the net effect of nudniks, we do offer here a synthesis of findings from the consumer complaining behavior literature, suggesting that many nudniks positively contribute to the market. At the minimum, our analysis suggests that legal scholars and policymakers should pay more attention to nudniks' effects. 

The nudniks are a response to the problems with the informed minority theory. This theory essentially rests on two assumptions, regarding the what and the how of seller behavior. First, what sellers do: The theory assumes that sellers compete over a small segment of consumers who read the contract and care about its terms. Second, how they do it: To win the segment of readers, sellers have to offer better terms to all consumers across the board. Sellers operate through standard-form contracts, and cannot tell which consumer is a reader and which is not before the fact; therefore, they are forced to offer better terms for all. In this Essay, we respond to the first premise. Many have taken the recent empirical evidence of low readership rates to as undermining the possibility of internal market discipline. This Essay suggests that market discipline does not have to be predicated on consumers reading the contract before purchasing; it can also come from consumers noticing and complaining publicly about sellers who fail to meet consumers' transactional expectations, regardless of the contract. In a separate paper, we confront the second assumption of the informed minority theory: the premise that sellers cannot distinguish between active and passive consumers. In today's world, we ar- gue there, sellers can, and to a growing extent already do, employ big data tools to tell which consumer is most likely to be nudnik, and then cater to these consumers personally. 

This Essay proceeds in three parts. Part I explores the leading theo- ries of market-based, consumer governance mechanisms and their shortcomings. Part II suggests a new direction for thinking of market- based consumer governance. Instead of counting how many consum- ers read contracts, we need to shift attention to consumer dissatisfaction behavior: How many consumers complain after the purchase? How do other potential consumers react to these complaints? What impact do such complaints have on sellers? We emphasize the rise of the internet and social media as factors that greatly empowered nudniks and increased their potential reach. As long as sellers are un able to spot nudniks in advance,10 they are incentivized to provide higher-quality service to all consumers ex ante, so as not to risk the reputation and legal risk that comes with nudniks. Part III evaluates the shortcomings of nudnik-based activism. We conclude that while not all nudnik-activity is socially beneficial, overall there is reason to believe that nudniks are the unsung heroes of market governance.

Suicide and ADHD

'The Dark Side of ADHD: Factors Associated With Suicide Attempts Among Those With ADHD in a National Representative Canadian Sample' by Esme Fuller-Thomson, Raphaël Nahar Rivière, Lauren Carrique and Senyo Agbeyaka in (2020) Archives of Suicide Research comments 

This study investigated the prevalence and odds of suicide attempts among adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) compared to those without and identified factors associated with suicide attempts among adults with ADHD. 

Methods 

Secondary analysis of the nationally representative Canadian Community Health Survey–Mental Health (CCHS-MH) (n = 21,744 adults, of whom 529 had ADHD). Respondents were asked whether they received an ADHD diagnosis from a health care professional. Lifetime suicide attempt was based on self-report. 

Results 

Adults with ADHD were much more likely to have attempted suicide than those without (14.0% vs. 2.7%). One in four women with ADHD have attempted suicide. Sixty percent of the association between ADHD and attempted suicide was attenuated when lifetime history of depression and anxiety disorders were taken into account. Female gender, lower education attainment, substance abuse, lifetime history of depression, and childhood exposure to chronic parental domestic violence were found to be independent correlates of lifetime suicide attempts among those with ADHD.

The authors state

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a complex mental illness that impacts several domains of a person’s life. The global prevalence of childhood ADHD has been estimated to be between 2% and 7%, and it is the third most common mental health condition affecting young people (Sayal, Prasad, Daley, Ford, & Coghill, 2018). The prevalence of ADHD in adults has been estimated to be between 2.9% in Canada (Hesson & Fowler, 2018) and 4.3% in the U.S. (London & Landes, 2019). ADHD is characterized by excessive and impaired levels of impulsivity, overactivity, and inattention (Polanczyk, Salum, Sugaya, Caye, & Rohde, 2015). With symptoms persisting for 1 in every 23 adults between the ages of 18 and 44 (Kessler et al., 2006), both children and adults with ADHD are more likely than their peers without ADHD to experience a variety of behavioral and mental health problems, in addition to significant difficulties in their social and family life (Agnew-Blais, Seidman, & Buka, 2013; Kessler et al., 2006). 

One of these problems that is of particular concern is the high incidence of suicidal behaviors among those with an ADHD diagnosis (Balazs & Kereszteny, 2017; Giupponi et al., 2018). A large cohort study found that those with a diagnosis of ADHD had 4.7 times higher rate of suicide-related behavior compared to those without an ADHD diagnosis (Fitzgerald, Dalsgaard, Nordentoft, & Erlangsen, 2019). Research also suggests gender differences in the psychopathological profile of ADHD and suicide-related behaviors. For example, females with ADHD are at significantly higher risk for suicidal ideation (Kakuszi, Bitter, & Czobor, 2018). 

As mentioned, ADHD symptoms can persist into adulthood and contribute to ongoing emotional and behavioral problems, including suicidality. A longitudinal study of youth and young adults with ADHD found that by young adulthood, the odds of suicidal ideation were approximately twice that of those without ADHD (Barkley & Fischer, 2005). A nationally representative sample of adults from England found that those with current ADHD had 50% higher odds of having attempted suicide in comparison to adults without (Agosti, Chen, & Levin, 2011). In an American population-based prospective study, the standardized mortality rate for death by suicide by an average age of 27 years was almost five times higher for those who had had ADHD diagnosed in childhood compared to peers without ADHD (Barbaresi et al., 2013). The existing literature seems to indicate that childhood ADHD is associated with an increased risk of suicidality.

Fake Health News

The Anti-Vaxx Playbook by the Center for Countering Digital Hate, notes 

The Anti-Vaxx Industry, CCDH’s July 2020 report, exposed how the global scientific consensus on vaccines is being undermined by a small but determined and sophisticated network of individuals and groups spreading misinformation online. They have improved their reach and sustainability through skilful exploitation of social media to proselytize and normalize their fringe beliefs. 

Big Tech companies such as Facebook and Instagram, Twitter, Google and YouTube have done little to stop the flow of lies. Another CCDH report, Failure to Act, released in September 2020, showed that even when users report misinformation to the platforms, fewer than 1 in 20 misinformation posts were removed. Why? In part, because the audience for anti-vaccine misinformation is worth up to $1 billion a year. 

Global health advocates need to understand the battle we are in. There is an identifiable counterforce trying to persuade people Covid isn’t dangerous, vaccines are dangerous, and that doctors and scientists cannot be trusted. Pretending the threat doesn’t exist isn’t good enough. Assuming compliance with vaccine programmes is negligent. We need to adapt or risk losing. 

Digital platforms have rapidly become the dominant means by which people transmit knowledge, maintain relationships and establish norms and values. The Covid pandemic has further consolidated this situation. Social media became a vital part of our wellbeing as physical interactions were curtailed. The digital realm of our existence, however, is governed by algorithms that don’t care about truth, our wellbeing or even morality, and are instead designed to maximize time spent on platforms. The organisation of content by algorithms in such a way, without regard to any harm it may cause, is fundamentally changing our society. We are not just less able to agree on what were once considered “facts”. It is making it more fissiparous, more brittle, more polarised and less tolerant. 

This report, The Anti-Vaxx Playbook, is based on in-depth analysis of speeches and presentations by leading digital anti-vaccine advocates at a meeting they recently held in private over three days; investigation of private anti-vaccine digital spaces; and other intelligence gathered by our researchers. It reveals how anti-vaccine networks are systematically planning to suppress uptake of the Coronavirus vaccine by exploiting digital platforms. 

These malignant actors have developed their strategic understanding over years of advocacy and practice. Their strategy is simple. Exploit social media algorithms’ predilection for controversial and engaging content to hammer home three key messages - Covid isn’t dangerous; vaccines are dangerous; and mistrust of doctors, scientists and public health authorities. Despite the variety of styles, tones and themes employed by the anti-vaccine movement, every meme they share is in service to one of these three messages. 

Our response must be equally simple: to inoculate against misinformation by ignoring the individual memes generated by the anti-vaxx industry and instead focus on communicating our core message - one that has the benefit of being true:

1. Covid is deadly; 

2. Vaccines are among the safest, most effective, most consequential human inventions in the past two centuries, saving countless lives from disease, disability and even death; and 

3. Doctors, scientists and public health professionals chose those professions because they want to help people and better understand the world.

Big Tech needs to make a decision, now that we expose the intent, the tactics and the deadly impact of the anti-vaxx industry, and the ways in which social media platforms have become integral to their success. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google can stop this now. They could stop providing services to people whose business is in enabling the spread of disease and death. The tech giants keep telling us that they will remove anti-vaxx content from their websites and yet the key players exposed in The Anti-Vaxx Industry are still meeting months later, gleefully plotting how the Coronavirus vaccine presents them with an opportunity to sell their false cures and false hope on social media platforms. Anything less than the dismantling of these individuals’ profiles, pages and groups and permanent denial of service, now they know what is happening, is willing acquiescence. 

The time for spin is over. For years, we assessed that the social media companies did not understand the problem because if they did, surely, they would do something about it because it was harming people. Lots of government, political and civil society leaders and public figures personally met with tech sector representatives to discuss the threat and received assurances that they would actively remove material that violates their terms of service. And yet, a decade later, there is even more misinformation on the platforms. It is time for quantifiable, verifiable action, or governments need to step in to perform their ultimate duty - to protect the lives of the people who put them in place.

The report states 

1. Drawing on access to a private conference attended by the world’s leading anti- vaxxers, CCDH has been able to reveal their plan to use social media to spread distrust about the Covid vaccine and recruit new supporters to their cause. 

2. Leading anti-vaxxers view Covid as an historic opportunity for them to reach larger numbers of the public than ever before, and to create long-lasting distrust in the effectiveness, safety and necessity for vaccination. 

3. Online anti-vaxxers continue to grow, with 147 of the leading accounts gaining 10.1 million followers since 2019, an increase of 25%. The additional growth took place primarily on Instagram and YouTube, with anti-vaxxers adding an extra 4.3 million followers on each platform. 

4. Anti-vaxxers have developed a sophisticated playbook for spreading uncertainty about a Covid vaccine, converting vaccine-hesitant people into committed anti- vaxxers, and resisting attempts to remove their misinformation. 

5. Online anti-vaxxers have organised themselves around a “master narrative” comprised of three key messages: Covid is not dangerous, the vaccine is dangerous and vaccine advocates cannot be trusted. 

6. Alternative health entrepreneurs, conspiracy theorists and accounts aimed at parents or ethnic communities vastly expand the reach of this master narrative and tailor it to cause uncertainty in their audiences. 

7. Anti-vaxxers have created accessible online “answering spaces” such as Facebook Groups, Instagram accounts and purpose-built websites that are designed to answer legitimate questions about a Covid vaccine with anti-vaccine misinformation. 

8. The most established anti-vaccine “answering spaces” identify vaccine hesitant individuals, convert them into committed anti-vaxxers and offer training to make them more effective activists. 

9. Anti-vaxxers are attempting to mitigate the removal of their misinformation by adopting a “Lifeboat Strategy” of migrating their followers to “alt-tech” platforms such as Telegram and Parler, but with little success. 

10. The public are urged not to engage with anti-vaxx misinformation online, even to rebut it or criticise it, because doing so only spreads the misinformation to new audiences. The example is given of anti-vaxxer narratives “trending” on social media on the first day of the vaccine rollout, primarily due to pro-vaccine accounts amplifying them. Instead, users are urged to share pro-vaccine messages. 

11. Platforms are urged to remove the accounts of anti-vaxx “superspreaders”, those accounts with the largest followings and using the most cynical tactics. The report provides evidence that some are guilty of promoting false cures for Covid and training their social media followers to spread harmful misinformation. 

12. Pro-vaccine practitioners are advised to focus on inoculating the public by ignoring individual memes and focusing on the master narrative, with a series of suggestions for how “inoculation” can make individuals more resilient to anti-vaxxer messaging.