LONDON (Within the Law) - It was a saga that gripped Instagram and now means that a judge and a whole group of legal experts are having to get to grips with social media speak. Colleen, wife of Wayne Rooney, and Rebekah, wife of Jamie Vardy are going toe to toe in the High Court of who said what to the Sun.
It started last October when Mrs Rooney earned the nickname Wagatha Christie after she turned detective to uncover a mole who had been leaking stories about her to the tabloids. After a five-month investigation, she took to social media to announce the results. “It’s ……… Rebekah Vardy’s account’.
The post went viral and set off a full-on social media meltdown. Understandably Rebekah Vardy took exception and is now suing for libel claiming she has been painted as the villain.
Mrs Rooney’s lawyers, meanwhile, are claiming she did not name Vardy personally, but her account to which all sorts of people have access including her agent and publicists.
Rooney’s five-month secret investigation started after she became suspicious about where the press was getting certain stories about her in the press. Claiming she had her suspicions she blocked everyone on her private account from viewing her stories except for one, Rebekah Vardy. She then started leaking false stories about herself onto the platform including one about gender selection in Mexico, returning to TV and the impact of flooding in her house. Sure as night follows day, the stories appeared in the press.
She had her culprit and took to social media for the big reveal.
However, Mrs Vardy has fought back claiming the accusation caused her to suffer widespread abuse online. At the time she had been five months pregnant and worried the stress might cause her to miscarriage.
According to her lawyers she was trolled online by users who claimed she was the secret leader of ISIS and might have been behind the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
“The fact that both women are married to professional footballers has led to this action being trivialised in some media coverage as ‘Wag wars’,” said her lawyer Hugh Tomlinson QC. “But the impact on Mrs Vardy was not trivial.”
Mrs Rooney’s lawyers, meanwhile, claims the posts did not directly accuse Mrs Vardy herself, but her Instagram account. The use of “three ellipses and a full stop,” said her lawyers draw the readers’ eye to the accusation being levelled at Mrs Vardy’s account, rather than her as a person.
Acting for Mrs Rooney David Sherbourne said: “We say that what the ordinary social media user would have taken from this is simple: that the source of the leak comes from Rebekah Vardy’s account. After all, that is what Mrs Rooney says.
“When one looks through the words and sees the process, what one would have been struck by is the constant reference to the word account, as opposed to the word individual.”
Her lawyers contended that social media has now opened up a new class of reader and that it is generally accepted that celebrities’ social media accounts are not necessarily operated by them. By repeatedly using the phrase Rebecca Vardy’s account, they say, she made it clear that this accusation was not necessarily about her as a person.
Mrs Vardy’s lawyers contend the opposite and can point to the flurry of personal abuse she received as a result.
“We say that the impression an ordinary social media user would get from the post is clear: it was Rebekah Vardy who was leaking to The Sun, she was the person who had access to the post and she was the one who was betraying Mrs Rooney over the years,” they stated.
The hearing, which is not being attended by either woman, is the first preliminary stage in what is set to be a high-profile battle between the two former friends. Lawyers for both parties have said they would like a final attempt at mediation in order to avoid a full trial. If those talks fail, the case will be likely to be heard for five days next summer.
(Written by Tom Cropper, Edited by Klaudia Fior)