The Swedish Court of Appeal has decided that Linda Karlström is not entitled to damages following SVT’s documentary “Vaccine Warriors” (Vaccinkrigarna). The decision means that the District Court’s previous judgment is overturned and that Karlström is forced to pay the state’s legal costs.

It was in 2020 that Linda Karlström was contacted by seemingly “concerned parents of young children” who sought contact with representatives critical of vaccines for guidance. Behind the facade, however, were SVT’s reporters, who secretly filmed Karlström in her home to discredit her in front of the Swedish people in the documentary “Vaccinkrigarna”.

Karlström then chose to sue the state-owned channel for SEK 150,000, citing abuse and violation of European Convention rights. She believes that the state “through the inappropriate and distorted portrayal in Vaccinkrigarna exerts psychological pressure” and thus prevented her from practicing her worldview. She also felt that the reporters violated press ethics and made “extensive invasions of privacy”.

The trial began in February 2023, with the Stockholm District Court ordering the state to pay Karlström SEK 100,000 in damages. The District Court held that the publication of the documentary constituted an invasion of Karlström’s right to privacy. Although the District Court found that SVT’s actions could not be attributed to the state, it held that the state had violated its positive obligations under the ECHR. However, both parties had to pay their own legal costs.

In April of the same year, the Swedish state, through the Chancellor of Justice, chose to appeal the district court’s judgment. In May, the Court of Appeal decided to re-examine the case.

Overturns ruling

The Court of Appeal has now overturned the District Court’s previous decision and finds that Karlström is not entitled to damages. The Court of Appeal agrees with the District Court’s assessment that SVT’s actions constituted an invasion of Karlström’s privacy and that her rights outweigh the journalists’ freedom of expression. However, the Court of Appeal considers that the state has not failed in its obligations under the ECHR.

– The Court of Appeal considers that the state has provided sufficiently adequate and effective protection for the interference with the woman’s rights through, for example, the existing possibility of bringing a defamation action and the review that can be made by the Review Board. The State has therefore not failed in its obligations. This means that the woman is not entitled to damages, says Freddy Larsson, Counsel for the Court of Appeal and rapporteur in the case.

Karlström will therefore not receive any damages and must instead pay the state’s legal costs from both the district court and the court of appeal – a total of almost SEK 500 000.