00919-25 Norton v thesun.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Andrew Norton complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that thesun.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Tesla sales PLUNGE by almost 50% in UK as two major rivals overtake in popularity”, published on 4 March 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported that Tesla sales “in the UK have plummeted by almost 50 percent as Elon Musk's popularity continues to tumble”. The article went on to report that “[a]cross Europe, sales have dropped by 45 per cent overall, with similar individual stats in the likes of Denmark, Sweden and Norway”.

3. The complainant said the article was inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1, to report that Tesla sales had decreased in the UK. He said sales had in fact increased.

4. In addition to this, the complainant said the article was misleading as it did not make clear that the 45% figure, referenced in the article, related to the combined markets of the EU, European Free Trade Association (EFTA), and the UK — not the UK specifically. The complainant said the phrasing used within the article implied that the UK experienced a similar drop, which he said was not reflected within the data.

He provided data from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) to support his position.

5. The complainant also said the article was inaccurate as it omitted to report that there was a growth in Tesla sales throughout February 2025 – he said that the Tesla model 3 and the model Y were the second and third best-selling cars, respectively, in the UK in February. He also said the publication had “cherry-picked” the sales figures for January, a month that was “always going to be bad for Tesla as they have just replaced their best-selling car, the Model Y, with a new version”.

6. The publication did not accept it was significantly inaccurate to report that there had been a fall in Tesla sales of “almost 50%”. It did, however, did accept that it was inaccurate to characterise this fall as having occurred solely “in the UK” and – one week after being made aware of the complaint - informed the complainant it had made the following amendments to the article:

Headline

“Tesla sales PLUNGE by 45% in Europe as two major rivals overtake in popularity.”

Introduction

“TESLA sales in Europe - including Britain - plummeted by 45 per cent in January as Elon Musk's popularity continues to tumble.”

Main body

"He is one of the founders of Tesla, but many owners across Europe are ditching the EVs."

“This stir has had a knock-on effect for his Tesla sales, with the slump spreading across Europe, according to a recent report by The Times.”

“They claim that sales across Europe dropped by 45 per cent overall in January, with similar individual stats in the likes of Denmark, Sweden and Norway.”

7. The publication also said it would be happy to add the following footnote to the article:

“This article, now amended, originally wrongly attributed the fall in Tesla sales in January to the UK alone. In fact, the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association figure under report includes the EU, EFTA and the UK.”

8. The complainant was not satisfied with the action taken by the publication. He said the article had been published after the sales figures for February were released by the SMMT, and noted the article did not report the growth in sales shown by these figures. The complainant also said that the article omitted ”critical context” and implied that demand for electric vehicles had fallen, when in fact supply constraints were a significant factor as to why sales had dropped in Europe.

9. Further, the complainant said that the updated article omitted any reference to electric vehicle sales in the UK, which he said strongly suggested Britain had experienced a comparable drop in electric vehicle demand to other European nations. He also expressed concern that the article had been published one day before the UK sales data was available, and this was not made clear in the article.

10. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication said the SMMT’s February registration figures were not released until the day after its article was published. It said in any event its article did not refer to, nor was it informed by, the SMMT data. Rather, the basis for the article was data released by the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA) which showed a 45.2% decrease in new Tesla registrations for EU, EFTA and UK in January 2025. The publication considered the ACEA to be “an extremely authoritative and reliable source of such information”.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Findings of the Committee

11. The Committee first considered whether the headline and text of the article inaccurately reported that Tesla sales had “plunge[d]” and “plummeted”, respectively, by “almost 50%” in the UK.

12. Both parties accepted it was inaccurate to report that sales had dropped by almost 50% in the UK alone, and that the data actually reflected the figures for the EU, EFTA and UK combined. This data was available to the publication at the time it was preparing the article – indeed, it was the basis for the original version of the article – and it had misrepresented it in the article. For this reason, the publication had not taken due care not to report inaccurate information. Therefore, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

13. The Committee had regard to the fact that headlines are inherently prominent: they open articles, which are read in light of them, and will often appear on an online publication’s homepage. Given the greater prominence and weight afforded to headlines, misleading information within headlines will generally be significant. In addition, the article repeated the inaccurate headline claim, and the premise of the article was based on the inaccurate information. As such, the headline and article were significantly inaccurate, and a correction was required under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The Committee next considered whether the action taken by the publication was sufficient to avoid a breach of this sub-Clause.

14. The publication had offered to publish a correction during direct correspondence with the complainant, one week after it had first received the complaint – which the Committee considered to be duly prompt.

15. When considering whether the correction offered was sufficiently prominent, the Committee had regard for the fact that the publication had amended the article to remove the inaccurate information and to make clear that the decline in figures was across the EU, EFTA and UK combined – and that this had happened promptly. Given this, the Committee considered the offer of a footnote correction to be duly prominent.

16. The Committee turned next to the wording of the correction offered. It was satisfied that it both acknowledged the original inaccurate information and the correct position, namely that the decrease in sales was across the EU, EFTA and the UK combined. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the correction offered was sufficient. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

17. The Committee then considered whether the article breached Clause 1 by not reporting the “critical context” referenced by the complainant: the SMMT’s February figures which had shown an increase in Tesla sales; his position that supply constraints were a significant factor in the decrease of sales in Europe rather than a lack of demand; and the number of electric vehicle sales within the UK. The complainant had also expressed concern that the article had been published the day before the UK sales data was available.

18. The Committee was clear that the publication was entitled to rely on the ACEA data and doing so did not, in and of itself, represent a breach of the Code – albeit the Committee did find, as noted above, that the publication’s chosen figures had been inaccurately reported. There was no obligation for the publication to rely on or report the complainant’s preferred SMMT data, or for the publication to await the SMMT data release before publishing its article. While the complainant had argued that this was “cherry-picking”, it did not follow that this meant the article was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted, and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

19. Turning to the remainder of the information which the complainant said had been omitted from the article, provided an article is not rendered inaccurate or misleading by the omission of information, the selection of material for publication is a matter of editorial discretion. There was no obligation for the article to put forward the complainant’s hypothesis as to why sales had decreased, or to specifically report on electric car sales in the UK. In such circumstances, there was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.

Conclusions

20. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i).

Remedial action required

21. The correction which was offered clearly put the correct position on record, and was offered promptly and with due prominence, and should now be published.

Date complaint received: 12/03/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 15/08/2025