Corrections Policy

Requests may be submitted by:

• The subject of a record
• Legal counsel or an authorised representative
• A company or organisation named in a record
• A source
• A person materially affected by the publication
• A member of the public with relevant evidence
• LegalEvidence’s own researchers, journalists or reviewers

Research Membership is not required to request correction of a published record.

A correction request may concern:

A correction request should contain:

1. The record concerned. Provide the URL, dossier, report or investigation.
2. The exact statement challenged. Identify the specific passage believed to be inaccurate or incomplete.
3. The requested correction. Explain what should be corrected, clarified or updated.
4. The basis for the request. Explain why the existing record is inaccurate or materially incomplete.
5. Supporting evidence. Provide relevant judgments, orders, regulatory documents, corporate filings, contracts, correspondence or other reliable material.
6. Your relationship to the matter. Identify whether you are the subject, counsel, authorised representative or another interested party.

LegalEvidence considers the substance of a challenge and the evidence supporting it.

Where a correction request disputes an official record, court document or regulatory finding, the requester should provide reliable material demonstrating why the published account is inaccurate or no longer current.

LegalEvidence may independently verify documents submitted in support of a request.

Fabricated, altered or misleading documentation may be rejected and handled in accordance with applicable law and policy.

A correction request may be reviewed against:

Where necessary, researchers, editors or legal reviewers may conduct additional verification before a decision is made.

Following review, LegalEvidence may take one or more of the following actions:

Where LegalEvidence verifies that:

• charges have been dismissed;
• a person has been acquitted;
• a judgment has been reversed;
• a regulatory finding has been withdrawn;
• a sanctions designation has been removed; or
• another material determination has changed,

the existing record should be reviewed. The prominence of the update should be proportionate to the significance of the original reporting and subsequent development.

An acquittal must not be buried beneath an earlier accusation.

LegalEvidence describes settlements according to their actual terms.

Where materially relevant, the record should state whether liability was admitted, denied, expressly not admitted, or left unresolved.

The existence of a settlement should not be characterised as an admission unless the underlying documents support that characterisation.

An earlier statement may have been accurate when published even though subsequent events changed the matter. In such cases, LegalEvidence may preserve the historical record while prominently adding the later development. For example:

The purpose is to prevent the historical record from creating a misleading impression about the matter’s present status.

Where a correction materially affects the meaning of a publication, LegalEvidence may add a correction or update notice explaining what changed. The notice may identify:

• what was previously stated;
• what was incorrect or incomplete;
• what has been changed; and
• when the correction was made.

Minor spelling, formatting, grammatical or stylistic changes do not ordinarily require a formal correction notice.

Corrections log

A record’s evidentiary classification may change as a matter develops. For example:

A change in classification should reflect the actual procedural and evidentiary development — not an editorial preference.

LegalEvidence may decline a correction request where the challenged publication remains fairly and accurately supported by the available evidence.

A subject’s disagreement with reporting does not itself make the reporting inaccurate.

Where credible evidence remains genuinely disputed, LegalEvidence may reflect the competing positions rather than adopting either side’s preferred characterisation as established fact.

LegalEvidence does not remove accurate reporting merely because it is:

At the same time, LegalEvidence does not maintain information merely because it is adverse. Removal or restriction may be considered where justified by circumstances such as:

• mistaken identity;
• materially false information;
• inability to support a material claim;
• binding legal obligation;
• applicable reporting restriction;
• disproportionate personal information;
• serious source-authentication failure;
• or another compelling legal or editorial basis.

Each request is considered on its merits.

LegalEvidence does not charge a subject to correct information that we determine is materially inaccurate.

We do not accept payment, gifts, favors, membership fees or other consideration in exchange for suppressing or altering an otherwise accurate record.

Research Members may receive professional assistance preparing or submitting supporting materials, but membership does not affect the substantive outcome of a correction request.

Evidence determines the outcome.

A correction to LegalEvidence does not necessarily result in immediate changes to search-engine caches, third-party databases, web archives, screenshots or copies published elsewhere.

Where technically and legally appropriate, LegalEvidence may update its own metadata or request re-indexing after a material correction.

LegalEvidence cannot guarantee changes to content controlled independently by third parties.

A person should not receive adverse editorial treatment merely because they requested a correction, retained counsel, disputed reporting or exercised a lawful right.

Likewise, the involvement of lawyers does not exempt a record from appropriate review.

Depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances, a person may have statutory or other legal rights concerning inaccurate personal data, privacy, defamation, court reporting, data processing or other matters.

For example, where UK data-protection law applies, rights and exemptions may arise under the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018, including provisions applicable to processing for journalistic purposes.

The existence and scope of any particular legal right or exemption depends on the facts and applicable jurisdiction. Nothing in this policy limits rights or obligations that cannot lawfully be excluded.

Legal representatives may submit a request on behalf of a client. LegalEvidence may request reasonable confirmation that the representative is authorised to act for the subject.

A demand from counsel does not automatically establish an error. Equally, the involvement of counsel is never a reason to disregard credible evidence demonstrating that a correction is required.

LegalEvidence may review records when:

• new evidence becomes available;
• a proceeding materially develops;
• a judgment is issued;
• an appeal concludes;
• a regulator changes its position;
• a source is discredited;
• a subject provides material documentation; or
• LegalEvidence independently identifies a possible error.

A published record should remain accountable to the evidence supporting it.