This was reported in a comment to Women in Media by Olha Vdovenko, Director of Legal Department at the Human Rights Platform NGO. She provides legal support to Women in Media in the case of Olena Mudra, assisting her in countering the online discreditation campaign.
The lawyer sent inquiries directly to the email addresses listed on the websites that published defamatory materials about Olena Mudra. In addition, she contacted domain name registrars, requesting information about the domain owners.
“Only one of more than twenty requests received a reply with actual data: the name and patronymic of the person who registered the resource. In most cases, however, these websites are registered with foreign domain services — in the United States or the United Kingdom,” explained Olha Vdovenko.
She noted that in cases where non-public information about a registrant is required, one must submit a request including a description and justification of why such access does not conflict with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and a Legitimate Interests Assessment (LIA).
In such a situation, a person whose rights have been violated and who is ready to file a lawsuit faces a real problem: it is unclear whom to target with the claim. Moreover, Vdovenko adds, in most cases, the names of the article authors are fabricated or missing altogether:
“This vividly demonstrates how crucial transparency requirements are for online media. If a website positions itself as a media outlet, it must clearly disclose its owner, ultimate beneficial owner, and provide means of feedback. Otherwise, it is dishonest conduct that violates both journalistic standards and the principles of public accountability of the media.”
According to Oleksandr Burmahin, a member of the National Council on Television and Radio Broadcasting, Ukraine currently lacks sufficient legal mechanisms to influence anonymous web resources, identify their owners, and hold them accountable for spreading disinformation. For example, the Law on Media provides procedures for responding to violations by anonymous websites if they breach the law, particularly Article 36, which concerns restrictions on content.
“In other words, the National Council, as the media regulator, can intervene in such cases if they involve, for example, hate speech or discrimination — issues explicitly defined as violations of the Law on Media. In such cases, the Council acts according to an established procedure: issuing an order, and if there is no response, deciding to block the resource. Pure disinformation, cases involving protection of honor and dignity, or dissemination of false information — the regulator has no tools to address these. Defamation has always fallen within civil law: there is a violation, and the individual goes to court to defend their rights,” Burmahin explained.
Another way to block online resources applies primarily to websites that may pose a threat to national security. Such matters fall under the National Commission for the State Regulation of Electronic Communications, Radio Frequency Spectrum and the Provision of Postal Services (NCEC). The center operating within this body may block such resources under the Law on Electronic Communications, Burmahin clarified:
“Essentially, all of their work is closed, with no transparent procedure for review or understanding of the grounds for their decisions. But they oblige providers to block dozens of websites — those connected to, let’s say, security concerns.”
When it comes to anonymous resources commonly referred to as “drain tanks,” as well as Telegram channels that often spread disinformation, Ukrainian law leaves individuals affected by such actions virtually defenseless, he added. At the same time, he stressed the importance of submitting complaints to law enforcement, as this can speed up the process of identifying those responsible for disseminating false information.
“Criminal proceedings allow law enforcement at least to try to establish who is behind this. With an open case, they have access to investigative tools, both overt and covert. The cyber police can also be very effective in such situations. From my experience, registrars often refuse to provide information in response to lawyers’ requests, saying they can only release owner data upon a request from investigators or a court letter. Therefore, in this case, criminal proceedings can be an effective instrument,” Burmahin said.
Liza Kuzmenko, Head of Women in Media, stressed that the attacks on Olena Mudra once again reveal the vulnerability of journalists when the owners of online resources remain in the shadows. “We call for strengthening legislation on transparency — so that everyone who disseminates information bears public responsibility. If a website positions itself as media, society must know who stands behind it. This is not only a matter of ethics, but also of journalists’ safety and the public’s right to reliable information,” she emphasized.
As reported earlier, freelance journalist Olena Mudra, who contributes to Zakarpattia Online, is currently facing a large-scale online attack following her investigation into attempts at illegal construction on Mount Runa in the Carpathians.
During this attack, several online platforms published defamatory materials about her, released personal data about her and her family members, and used AI technologies to generate fake content.
Earlier, Olena Mudra also filed a police report on intentional obstruction of journalistic activity and violation of privacy.
This material is prepared under the initiative supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands as part of the project “Strengthening the Resilience of Women Journalists in Ukraine: Combating Online Violence and Gendered Disinformation,” implemented by the Women in Media NGO.