Brooklyn Peltz Beckham's recent Instagram stories have thrust private family matters into the public sphere, making allegations about his parents' behaviour, their treatment of his wife, and the prioritisation of "Brand Beckham" over genuine family relationships. 

The public fallout has had unexpected consequences, including Victoria Beckham's 2000 single Not Such An Innocent Girl becoming the UK's best-selling and most downloaded single the week of Brooklyn’s posts, 25 years after its release. 

Whilst it seems highly unlikely that the Beckham family would want to air further dirty laundry in public through litigation, it is worth briefly examining what legal recourse would theoretically be available, and why the usual privacy and defamation frameworks face unique challenges when family members, rather than newspapers, are doing the talking.

1. Misuse of Private Information 

Under English law, the tort of misuse of private information provides a remedy where someone discloses private information in which another person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The individual’s right to respect for privacy and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is then balanced against the publisher's Article 10 right to freedom of expression. 

Here, David and Victoria Beckham (and potentially others involved, including Brooklyn's siblings) could argue that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the matters Brooklyn disclosed. Brooklyn’s wedding was a private family event, and he also referred to other private family interactions and domestic arrangements. This is the type of information that falls, in principle, within the protected sphere of family life. 

However, the fundamental problem is that the information is now public, and injunctive relief is no longer available. The Beckham family members would need to bring claim(s) for damages, a prospect that is likely to be commercially and personally unappealing. 

There is also a question as to whether the private information published meets the de minimis threshold before liability for misuse of private information can arise, or whether it is considered to be trivial or anodyne information. The public clamour around the story would suggest otherwise, but judges tend to view such matters differently from the general public. 

Moreover, the individual versus individual nature of this case differs from most misuse of private information cases, which typically involve an individual suing a newspaper that is threatening to disclose their private information. Famous footballing examples from the 2010s involved John Terry, Rio Ferdinand, and Ryan Giggs seeking injunctions to prevent newspapers from publishing details of personal relationships. While in Ferdinand’s case, the proceedings were against the Sunday Mirror only, in the Giggs case, the individual with whom he had the relationship was a co-defendant, and in Terry’s case, he sought an order against ‘persons unknown’ (including but not limited to The News of the World). 

In this case, Brooklyn has directly publicised his opinion on shared family events that he was part of. While there is no strict reason that a family member could not take a privacy action against him over this, any such claim would involve a difficult balancing exercise for the courts between the Beckham family’s Article 8 right to privacy and Brooklyn’s Article 10 right to freedom of expression. 

On one side, the law is clear that even public figures, including the Beckham parents (and siblings), have Article 8 rights to respect for their private and family life. The level of privacy expected can be impacted by the amount of information the public figures publish about their own lives though.

On the other side, Brooklyn could argue that his publications are primarily about his own family life and experiences, and relate to events that happened to him, involving his mental health (specifically his "overwhelming anxiety"), his marriage, and his autonomy (namely that he has been "controlled by [his] parents for most of [his] life"). The fact that, rather than selling a story to the press, he is giving his own direct personal account of events that appear to have emotionally impacted him must weigh in the balancing act between Article 8 and Article 10 rights.  

Another important factor in favour of publication is that Brooklyn's allegations that his family prioritises brand over wellbeing and that "family love is decided by how much you post on social media" could be seen as correcting a misleading public impression created by the Beckhams (i.e. that they are a wholesome family unit).

As outlined above, the practical reality is that the Beckham family would be anxious not to engage in a public legal dispute with their son that would require extensive evidence about private family dynamics, likely causing further reputational harm and media scrutiny of their private lives. The very thing they would be trying to protect, the family brand and unity, would be further damaged by litigation.

2. Defamation/Libel 

The Beckham family members might also consider defamation claims. Brooklyn's statement was published via multiple individual Instagram stories. Assuming that, despite this structure, the posts would be construed as a single publication, the question is what the meaning of this publication is, and whether the publication as a whole, is defamatory. 

Under common law, a statement is defamatory where it lowers the claimant in the eyes of right-thinking people generally, causes them to be shunned or avoided, or exposes them to hatred, contempt or ridicule. Under the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013), a statement is only defamatory if it has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation. 

Looking at the overall meaning of Brooklyn's statement, the core allegation appears to be that his family prioritises "Brand Beckham" over genuine family wellbeing and relationships, and in particular their relationship with him. Specific allegations from Brooklyn in this regard include that: Victoria "repeatedly invited women from [his] past into [his/his wife’s] lives in ways that were clearly intended to make [them] both uncomfortable", while David is said to have "refused all of [their] attempts" to spend time together unless at camera-heavy events. 

Brooklyn’s posts, read as a whole, could certainly meet the threshold of lowering  the Beckhams' reputations in the eyes of right-thinking members of society, and given the widespread media coverage, the serious harm test may be satisfied.

However, Brooklyn would have an “honest opinion” defence under s.3 of the DA 2013. Many of his specific allegations are presented as his opinion and/or interpretation of family events based on his own experiences. For instance, whether his parents "prioritised brand over wellbeing" or whether invitations to ex-girlfriends were "clearly intended" to cause discomfort, appear to be matters of opinion and interpretation, rather than statements of fact. 

For the statements that purport to be statements of fact, such as specific meetings that did or did not occur, or the invitation of particular individuals to events, Brooklyn would have to defend these on the basis of “truth” under s.2 of the DA 2013, assuming he has evidence to support this. S.2 of the DA 2013 provides a complete defence if the defendant can show that the imputation conveyed is “substantially true”. 

In a previous family versus family case from 2008 (Briscoe v Hodder & Stoughton Ltd and Briscoe), former barrister and judge Constance Briscoe successfully defended a libel claim brought by her mother over allegations of childhood abuse in her memoir Ugly, relying on the defence of justification (replaced by the truth defence in the DA 2013).

Again, the practical implications of a defamation claim loom large.  The family would need to provide detailed evidence about private conversations, meetings, and their intentions behind personal comments and actions. The parents would be cross-examined about their parenting, their business priorities, and their treatment of Brooklyn's wife. The media coverage would undoubtedly be extensive and potentially very damaging. 

The Reality: Reputation Management Over Litigation 

Ultimately, whilst the Beckham family might have theoretical legal claims available, the prospect of actually pursuing them seems remote. Litigation would require publicising even more private family matters, would be commercially damaging to "Brand Beckham", and would prolong a news cycle they presumably would prefer to bring to an end (Victoria’s chart success aside). 

From a legal perspective, the dispute raises interesting questions about the extent to which family members can share their own experiences and opinions about shared family life without infringing others' privacy rights. 

The more likely response from the Beckhams (and the avenue they appear to be pursuing at present) is strategic reputation management. This will no doubt include careful public relations, and may include a dignified statement, all while allowing the media storm to pass. 

If you have any questions or queries concerning this topic, reputation management, or media disputes more generally, please do not hesitate to contact us.