For far too long, social media platforms have allowed individuals to exploit grief, tragedy, and real-life suffering for personal and financial gain. Conspiracy theorists, in particular, have built entire careers on spreading misinformation, distorting the truth, and inciting harassment—all while being rewarded with views, ad revenue, and ever-growing audiences. But on 26 February 2025, that changed.

In a historic ruling, the High Court sided with us in the case of Rzucek v Vinnicombe, marking the first time in UK legal history that a conspiracy theorist has been compelled to shut down a YouTube channel due to harassment and defamation. This was not just a legal victory; it was a powerful statement that victims of online abuse have recourse, that social media harassment carries real-world consequences, and that platforms like YouTube cannot be used as tools to terrorise innocent families.

The Challenge of Shutting Down a Conspiracy-Driven Platform

Taking down a website or social media channel dedicated to conspiracy-driven harassment is no small feat. For years, platforms like YouTube have been notoriously slow to act, even in the face of clear violations. They often hide behind the guise of free speech, despite the fact that targeted abuse, defamation, and harassment are not protected speech—they are criminal acts.

Even when channels spread dangerous misinformation, tech companies have hesitated to intervene, fearing accusations of censorship or backlash from users. This inaction has allowed individuals like Alan Vinnicombe to operate with impunity, crafting false narratives and amassing large followings of like-minded individuals who perpetuate harassment campaigns both online and offline.

This case, however, proves that it is possible to dismantle a harassment-driven online presence—through the courts. While social media platforms may drag their feet, the legal system does not. We succeeded in forcing a conspiracy theorist to face real-world consequences for behaviour that was as damaging as any physical crime.

The Case: A Family’s Nightmare Amplified by Conspiracy Theories

The case centred on the 2018 Watts family murders in the US, one of the most harrowing true crime cases in recent history. Chris Watts confessed to murdering his pregnant wife, Shanann Watts, and their two young daughters, Bella and Celeste. He was sentenced to life in prison, but for Shanann’s family, the Rzuceks, the nightmare was far from over.

Instead of being allowed to grieve in peace, the Rzuceks were subjected to relentless online abuse. A wave of conspiracy theorists emerged, claiming the murders were staged, that the grieving family members were complicit, and that they were actors in an elaborate cover-up. Among the most vocal figures in this campaign was Alan Vinnicombe, a UK-based YouTuber who dedicated hours of livestreams to ranting, accusing, and inciting his audience to attack the Rzucek family.

Vinnicombe’s reach extended far beyond YouTube. He encouraged his followers to harass the family in real life, making abusive calls, sending hateful messages, and flooding social media with defamatory content. When the Rzuceks sought legal help, Vinnicombe escalated his attacks, targeting their supporters and legal team—including myself and the lawyers at Cohen Davis. He weaponised his online following to orchestrate false reports, bombard our offices with emails and calls, and spread fabricated claims designed to undermine our efforts.

But we refused to back down.

The Fight to Hold a YouTuber Accountable

Holding a YouTuber accountable for this level of harassment is no simple task. One of the biggest hurdles we faced was YouTube’s reluctance to act. Despite clear evidence that Vinnicombe was using his platform to spread dangerous misinformation and incite harassment, the platform did not immediately shut down his channel.

Legally, the process was equally challenging. The court gave Vinnicombe four separate opportunities to present a valid defence—he failed every time. Instead of engaging with the legal system constructively, he continued to abuse it, attacking those trying to hold him accountable.

Yet, we remained steadfast. Thanks to the incredible generosity of the public, we crowdfunded the essential legal costs to fight this battle. Thousands of supporters donated—some even contributing their children’s pocket money—to ensure justice was served. When funds ran out, my team at Cohen Davis Solicitors, including the exceptional Filiz Kiani, continued to fight on a pro bono basis. With the expertise of Gervase de Wilde, a brilliant barrister who took time away from high-profile cases to stand up for justice, we secured a landmark victory.

For more details, read the judgment in the case of Frankie Rzucek v Alan Vinnicombe

What This Victory Means for the Future

Spreading conspiracy theories at the expense of innocent victims is not just unethical—it is unlawful. The court’s ruling represents a watershed moment in online harassment law. For years, conspiracy theorists have hidden behind the anonymity of social media, believing themselves untouchable. This case proves otherwise. It establishes that:

• Spreading conspiracy theories at the expense of innocent victims is not just unethical—it is unlawful.
• Social media harassment can have real-world legal consequences.
• Victims do not have to suffer in silence—justice is possible.

Above all, this victory belongs to every person who has ever been harassed online. It proves that we can fight back.

What’s Next?

While the court has ruled in our favour, the case is not yet over. A final hearing will determine the legal remedies, costs, and restrictions to be imposed on Vinnicombe moving forward. But the most significant battle has already been won. A harassing YouTube channel has been shut down. A conspiracy theorist has been held accountable. And victims of online harassment everywhere now have a precedent to fight back.

This victory is a testament to the power of perseverance, the importance of standing up for what is right, and the belief that no one should have to endure abuse in silence. It is a step forward in the fight to make the internet a safer, more just space for all.

The case of Frankie Rzucek v Alan Vinnicombe

Harassment injunctions, Internet defamation law, Key cases by Yair Cohen, Online harassment law, Social media legal expert, UK defamation law cases, UK internet lawyer 

By Yair Cohen