Research On Misinformation, Criminal Liability, And Freedom Of Expression
1. Case 1: Journalist Convicted for False COVID-19 Report (2020)
Facts: A journalist in Abu Dhabi aired an interview claiming that five members of an Emirati family had died due to COVID-19. The authorities investigated and found the claim was false.
Legal Issues:
Publishing false information that could incite panic or disrupt public order.
Violating Federal Decree-Law No. 34 of 2021 on Combating Rumors and Cybercrimes (and earlier Cybercrime laws).
Court Decision:
The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal sentenced the journalist to two years in prison.
The ruling emphasized that spreading false information during a public health crisis constituted a threat to public safety.
Implications:
Even professional journalists are liable under UAE law for spreading false news.
Shows strict enforcement during crises and limited tolerance for “unverified reporting.”
2. Case 2: UAE 94 Government Critics Trial (2013)
Facts: 94 activists and government critics were arrested for allegedly publishing online posts critical of UAE authorities and for association with groups aiming to destabilize the state.
Legal Issues:
Whether social media posts and critical expression can constitute “spreading false information” or “undermining state security.”
Court Decision:
69 of the 94 were convicted and given prison sentences ranging from 1 to 10 years depending on their level of involvement.
The court cited “false claims about government activities” as part of the evidence for disrupting public order.
Implications:
Demonstrates the UAE’s interpretation of misinformation is broad, including political criticism.
Highlights the overlap of criminal liability for misinformation with national security concerns.
3. Case 3: Blogger Osama Al-Najjar (2014)
Facts: Osama Al-Najjar posted online criticism of government broadcasts and alleged abuse of his father. Authorities charged him with spreading false information and insulting state institutions.
Legal Issues:
Online speech critical of government leadership.
Alleged spreading of false information and membership of a banned group.
Court Decision:
The Federal Supreme Court sentenced him to 3 years in prison and imposed a fine of approximately AED 500,000.
Implications:
Blogs and personal social media posts are treated with the same liability as professional publications.
Criticism of authorities, even if based on personal opinion or allegation, can lead to criminal conviction.
4. Case 4: UAE 5 Activists (2011)
Facts: Five activists, including Ahmed Mansoor, posted online criticism of UAE authorities and participated in online forums.
Legal Issues:
“Publicly insulting officials” and using online networks to influence public opinion.
Court Decision:
Mansoor received 3 years, others 2 years in prison under Article 176 of the Penal Code.
Implications:
Online criticism of officials is criminalized.
Illustrates the limited scope of freedom of expression in matters related to state or public officials.
5. Case 5: Defamation via Social Media (Al Ain Court, 2025)
Facts: A man posted defamatory comments about a business owner on social media, claiming unethical practices.
Legal Issues:
Whether misinformation/defamation on social media constitutes civil and/or criminal liability.
Court Decision:
The court ordered the man to pay AED 70,000 in damages.
The judgment relied on the principle that social media users can be held responsible for false statements that damage reputations.
Implications:
Civil liability exists alongside criminal liability.
Demonstrates that ordinary citizens must be cautious when posting online.
6. Case 6: Fake Child Abduction Video (2018)
Facts: Two women posted a video claiming a nanny was abducting a child. Investigation proved the nanny was legally carrying the child.
Legal Issues:
Spreading false information capable of disturbing public order.
Court Decision:
The women were charged under Federal Decree-Law No. 34 of 2021.
They were referred to prosecution for further legal action; penalties included potential imprisonment and fines.
Implications:
Ordinary individuals, not just journalists or activists, can face criminal liability.
Highlights the strict regulation of social media content.
7. Case 7: Employee Misinformation on Social Media (2022)
Facts: An employee shared false rumors online about layoffs in a major UAE company, causing panic among staff and affecting stock prices.
Legal Issues:
Dissemination of false information affecting the economy and public order.
Court Decision:
The employee was sentenced to 1.5 years in prison and fined AED 150,000.
Implications:
Economic disruption caused by misinformation is considered a serious criminal offense.
Demonstrates that UAE law extends to financial and business-related false information.
Key Takeaways from All Cases
UAE law criminalizes the publication of false information when it threatens public order, state institutions, or public safety.
Criminal liability applies to journalists, activists, bloggers, employees, and ordinary citizens.
Penalties include prison terms, substantial fines, or both.
Social media and online platforms are highly monitored; even sharing unverified rumors can result in prosecution.
Freedom of expression is limited when it conflicts with national security, public order, or reputation of the state.
Civil remedies (e.g., defamation claims) exist alongside criminal sanctions.
RELATED Blog
comments