Blackmail injunction cases: emergency injunctions for dating site blackmail
If someone you met on a dating website is blackmailing you, the High Court can stop them. In urgent cases the High Court can grant an emergency injunction on the same day, including at weekends: in the cases below, we secured one order on a Saturday, the day after our client came to us, and another on the day of the blackmailer's deadline. It makes no difference whether you are calling from the UK, the USA or anywhere else in the world. Our team of internet lawyers is well drilled in these applications: we act fast, we are familiar with every step of the urgent court process, and the court can protect your identity while it acts, so that stopping the blackmail does not itself expose you. The cases below are real injunctions we have obtained for clients in exactly this situation, listed newest first, and we keep the list current as each case moves through the court.
We secured three of these injunctions in a single month, June to July 2026. Two of them involve the same dating website, Seeking (formerly known as SeekingArrangement), and what appeared to be the same organised gang. In the second case, our in-house investigators identified the gang within hours of instruction, because we had injuncted the same operation three weeks earlier. This list is a live record, not a history page, and we add each new case as soon as the court process allows us to describe it.
What we do in the first few hours
The first few hours are about securing evidence, preparing the court application and taking the pressure of the deadline off your shoulders. In most of these cases the blackmailer has set a deadline, and everything we do is timed against it.
We capture and preserve the evidence first: the chat threads, the profiles, the payment demands, the accounts the money was to be sent to. Our investigators carry out the identification work in house, which is one of the reasons we can move at the speed the cases below show. Where the blackmailer is anonymous, we build the case against "persons unknown", defined by the accounts and channels they used, so the court order binds them even before we know their names.
At the same time, our lawyers prepare the application to the High Court: your witness statement, the draft order, and the application for anonymity so that you appear in the proceedings under initials rather than your name. We make the application without notice to the blackmailer, so they find out about the injunction when we serve it on them, not before. Once the court grants the order, we serve it through the same channels the blackmailer used, which can include the dating website itself, WhatsApp or Telegram, and we deal with the platform to have the material and the fake profiles taken down.
From that point, the blackmailer is no longer your problem to manage. We speak to them so that you do not have to.
Recent blackmail injunction cases
Each entry below is a real case. Where the court has anonymised the parties, we use the initials the court assigned, and we say only what the public documents and open-court hearings allow. The entries are updated as each case reaches its next stage.
HSX v Persons Unknown and others (2026), KB-2026-002571, King's Bench Division: emergency injunction granted the day after we were instructed
Our client, a businessman from the United States, was blackmailed after engaging with what turned out to be a fake female profile on the Seeking dating website. The conversation moved to Telegram. He sent no explicit material at all, clothed photographs only, and he was blackmailed anyway. Before he came to us he had paid $50,000, instructed private investigators in the US who could not identify those behind the demands, and had his US corporate lawyers advising him. The blackmail carried on regardless.
He instructed us at around 4pm on a Friday, with the blackmailer's deadline set for the Monday. By the following day, a Saturday, the duty judge, Mrs Justice Farbey, had granted an emergency injunction against persons unknown identified by the accounts and channels they used to communicate with him, including the Seeking website, Telegram, WhatsApp and named payment accounts. Within hours of instruction, our in-house investigators had identified those behind the demands, who appeared to be part of the same organised gang we had injuncted in RXE, below, three weeks earlier. At the return date Mr Justice Fordham continued the injunction until trial or further order, by order dated 29 July 2026, and the court gave a public judgment, [2026] EWHC 1985 (KB). The reporting restriction imposed at the without notice stage was discharged, the defendants, two of whom are also defendants in RXE below, are now named in the proceedings, and the court ordered them to disclose what they know about those behind the accounts by 31 July 2026. The without notice order is published on the judiciary website: HSX v Persons Unknown and others. You can read the full case study of HSX v Persons Unknown.
PHJ v UJV (2026), KB-2026-002444, King's Bench Division: injunction granted on the day of the blackmailer's deadline
This case is different from the others in the list, because the blackmail arose from a real private relationship rather than a fake profile. When our client, a married US businessman, tried to bring years of escalating payments to an end, the demands turned into threats to expose the relationship to his wife, family and business contacts. Faced with a fresh £20,000 demand and a same-night deadline, he paid just over £5,000 simply to buy time while legal protection was put in place.
He instructed us on 6 July 2026. We filed the emergency application shortly after 1pm on 8 July, the urgent applications judge, Mrs Justice Thornton, heard it that same afternoon, and we served the injunction on the defendant at 7.51pm, before the 10pm deadline she had set for disclosure. From first instruction to a served High Court order took about 48 hours. The court anonymised both parties, the defendant included, because naming her would have risked identifying our client through their shared personal circle. The parties agreed to move the return date to 23 July 2026, with the injunction remaining in force throughout. At the return date on 23 July 2026 Mrs Justice Tipples continued the injunction until trial or further order, with the anonymity of both parties continued; the defendant did not attend and was not represented, and the court ordered her to disclose to whom, if anyone, the information had been passed. The court's orders are published on the judiciary website: PHJ v UJV (injunction with anonymity and reporting restrictions orders). You can read the full case study of PHJ v UJV.
RXE v Ryan and others (2026), KB-2026-002349, King's Bench Division: emergency injunction and anonymity order, published on judiciary.uk
Our client, a UK national and not a public figure, was in the United States when he believed he was talking to a woman online. Images were exchanged. Demands for money followed and escalated between February and June 2026. The blackmailers used facial recognition software to identify him, and threatened to send the material to his wife and his business contacts. By the time he instructed us on 24 June 2026 he had paid more than US$70,000 and £30,000, hoping each payment would be the last. It never was.
Our advice was to prepare the court application in full and hold it ready, just in case. When the blackmailers came back on 29 June with a fresh £50,000 demand, the application was ready to go, and on the evening of 30 June 2026 the urgent applications judge, Mrs Justice Ellenbogen, granted a without notice interim injunction and an anonymity order. A complicated application moved that quickly because the work had already been done. The court continued the injunction at the return date on 3 July 2026, and the court's order is published on the judiciary website, naming the defendants: RXE v Daniel Ryan and others (anonymity order and injunction). You can read the full case study of RXE v Ryan and others.
Paying rarely ends it. Preparation does. A complicated application moved that quickly because the work had already been done.
BGR v Persons Unknown (2025), KB-2025-001803, King's Bench Division: injunction against blackmailers hiding behind false names
Our client was blackmailed by persons unknown who had made contact through the Vivastreet website and operated behind false identities. On 21 May 2025 Mrs Justice Collins Rice, sitting in the Media and Communications List, granted a without notice injunction prohibiting them from disclosing the private information, from publishing anything that would identify our client, from contacting him other than through his lawyers, and from harassing him. The court anonymised our client as BGR and identified the defendants by the false names they had used, "Mariam Dinita" and "Inout Noaptes". The court permitted the order to be served by email and text message on the very contact details the blackmailers themselves had used. The order is published on the judiciary website: BGR v Persons Unknown (injunction and anonymity order).
BBG v Persons Unknown [2023] EWHC 2355 (KB), KB-2023-003577, King's Bench Division: from emergency injunction to final judgment, with £62,000 in costs against the blackmailers
Our client, an openly gay man active in his religious community, had been the target of a campaign of blackmail and harassment by persons unknown since July 2023. They threatened to disclose private information about him, including intimate and explicit material recorded without his consent, to his community and, through the press, to the wider public. They had already shown they were willing to act, with a brief disclosure on his community's Facebook page, and ignoring the demands had only escalated them. He met the police and concluded that arrests were not likely to be imminent; days later came another call from the blackmailers.
The courts were on their summer break, but that made no difference: we applied urgently and without notice, and on 18 September 2023 the duty judge, Mrs Justice Hill, granted an interim injunction stopping both the threatened disclosure and the harassment. The court anonymised our client, with a reporting restriction under s.11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and the court took the exceptional step of prohibiting the blackmailers from revealing even the existence of the order, because of the risk they would tip off others: there was a suggestion their activities derived from organised crime, with an international element. The order identified the defendants only by the usernames and telephone numbers they had used, the numbers pointed abroad, and the court gave permission for the order to be served by WhatsApp on those same numbers, and outside the jurisdiction. The court's judgment is published: BBG v Persons Unknown [2023] EWHC 2355 (KB).
The case did not stop at the interim stage. The court continued the protections at the return date on 19 October 2023, and on 20 February 2024 Mrs Justice Steyn entered judgment in default against the defendants, granted a final injunction, and assessed costs of £62,000 against them. That order, too, is published on the judiciary website. As Mrs Justice Hill put it in the published judgment, "Blackmail victims should be afforded protection by the courts."
XLD v KZL [2020] EWHC 1558 (QB), Queen's Bench Division: ten months of demands, £125,000 paid, ended by one injunction
Our client, a US citizen working in financial services and entertainment, met the defendant on the Seeking Arrangement website in May 2019, and their WhatsApp messages turned sexually explicit. The demands for money began soon after, backed by threats to show his family what he had been doing. Each payment bought a little quiet and nothing more: over ten months he paid about £125,000. We recovered the deleted messages and the payment records, and our investigator identified the woman behind the demands, with a real name, a phone number and an address near Manchester. On 17 June 2020 Mr Justice Nicol granted a without notice interim injunction in harassment and misuse of private information, anonymised both parties, heard the application in private and gave permission for alternative service. He observed in the published judgment that it would be "surprising if, whatever system of law was applicable, it tolerated blackmail of the kind which is alleged here". When we served the order, the demands stopped. This was the first of the three injunctions on this list connected to the same platform, RXE and HSX above are the other two. The judgment is published: XLD v KZL [2020] EWHC 1558 (QB), and you can read the full case study of XLD v KZL.
Why blackmail on dating sites like Seeking is different
Blackmail that starts on a dating site is engineered around the site's own respectability. Seeking presents itself as a high-end, vetted platform, so successful men feel safe there, and the predators know exactly that. The false sense of security is the first part of the trap.
The pattern in the cases above is consistent. A profile matches with you, the conversation warms up quickly, and then it migrates off the platform, to Telegram or WhatsApp, where the site's moderation cannot see it. Sometimes explicit images or videos change hands. Sometimes, as HSX above shows, nothing explicit changes hands at all: our client sent clothed photographs only, said nothing explicit himself, and the chat itself became the material he was threatened with. And in some cases there was a real meeting and a real physical relationship, documented and then used for blackmail. Whichever of those describes your situation, it is covered by the cases above, and the court's protection works the same way in each.
Who the victims are
Most of the people we obtain these injunctions for are not "players". They slipped, once, during a tough patch in their life, and they deeply regret it. They never anticipated this outcome. They are naive in this world, and that is precisely what the predators are counting on.
The first reaction is almost always shock, and that is completely understandable. What matters is what happens next. Whether you are the victim, or an agent or lawyer representing the victim, get in touch as soon as possible. Things may be possible that you do not anticipate, and our job is to make this go away for you as quickly as possible.
What is really at stake
For people in the public eye, what is at stake is family: a wife, children, the people who have supported them for years. It is reputation among colleagues and business associates. For influencers, footballers and people in sport, it is sponsorships, where income relies heavily on sponsors and on the link to performance, so the threat lands on the whole career. Everything built over years can feel as if it is about to collapse on top of you.
The cruellest part of blackmail is that the very people you would normally lean on for support are the same people you feel embarrassed, or scared, to tell. That isolation is deliberate. It is part of how the scheme works, and it is one of the first things an injunction takes away, because from the moment the order is served, the secret stops being a weapon.
The psychology of the blackmailer
We have dealt with many blackmailers, and understanding how they think is part of how these cases get resolved. We know how they operate, what motivates them, when they escalate and when they fold. A blackmailer who has just been served with a High Court order, with a penal notice warning of imprisonment for breach, is dealing with a very different situation from a frightened victim paying quietly, and their behaviour changes accordingly.
That understanding comes from an unusual place for a media law practice. Paul Greenberg and Yair Cohen each spent 25 years as criminal defence lawyers before specialising in this field. We understand how criminals think from both ends of these cases: how to approach them, when and how the police fit into the picture, and how these matters actually resolve.
The law behind these orders
The orders in the cases above are civil injunctions granted by the High Court, usually based on the misuse of private information. Blackmail is also a serious criminal offence under section 21 of the Theft Act 1968, but you do not need to go to the police to get an injunction, and many clients prefer to keep control of the matter through the civil courts, at least at first.
Because these orders restrict what someone can publish, the court applies section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Practice Guidance on Interim Non-Disclosure Orders before granting one. The courts have recognised in the authorities that protecting the victims of blackmail is an important interest which can override the usual principle of open justice. That is why the court can anonymise you under CPR 39.2, and why the claimants in the cases above appear as initials. The hearing can take place in public while your name stays protected.
Beyond the injunction: making the whole thing go away
The injunction stops the threat, but for most clients the injunction is only part of what they need. We give support, common sense and good advice on handling the whole situation, not only the blackmailer but the reputational side too, up to and including helping you find the right way to communicate what has happened to the people you care about, if and when that is the right course.
We take the heavy lifting, emotional and practical, away from you and your agents. We handle it ourselves, keep you in the loop, and deal with it as quickly as possible. If you are an agent, a manager or a lawyer whose client is being blackmailed, we work alongside you in the same way, and your call to us can be the first step your client never has to make themselves.
Frequently asked questions
Can I stay anonymous?
Yes. In every 2026 case on the list above, the court anonymised our client, and in PHJ v UJV the court anonymised both parties, because naming the defendant would have risked identifying the claimant through the people they both knew. The court grants anonymity under CPR 39.2 where it is satisfied the protection is necessary, and the authorities recognise that victims of blackmail have a strong claim to it. You appear in the proceedings under initials, and the court's own published documents refer to you that way.
How quickly can an injunction be granted?
In a true emergency, within hours of our first phone call. In most cases, within 24 to 48 hours. In HSX the court granted the injunction the day after our client came to us, on a Saturday. In PHJ v UJV the court made the order on the day of the blackmailer's deadline, the same day we completed our client's witness statement. In RXE, where we had prepared the application in advance, the court granted the order the evening after the blackmailers made renewed contact. The court has an urgent applications judge available for exactly this kind of case, including out of normal court hours.
I have been given a very short deadline to pay. What should I do?
Get legal help immediately, from us or from another firm with real experience of urgent blackmail injunctions. Depending on your situation, buy yourself time. Time is the most precious thing you have right now, and it is worth more to you than it is to the blackmailer. One way to buy it is to postpone rather than refuse: you need a few days to raise the money, it cannot be done tonight. Every hour you buy, we can use. In PHJ v UJV above, we served the order at 7.51pm, before the blackmailer's 10pm deadline that same night. The deadline is their pressure tactic. Handled well, it becomes your window.
Do I have to attend court?
Usually not. We make the application without notice to the blackmailer, and your evidence goes in through a witness statement we prepare with you. Our lawyers and counsel attend the hearing. Most clients never set foot in a courtroom.
What if the blackmailer is abroad or I do not know who they are?
The court can grant an injunction against "persons unknown", defined by the accounts, phone numbers and channels they used to contact you, so the order binds the blackmailer even before anyone knows their name. The court can also give permission for the order to be served through those same channels, including through the dating website itself. Where the money trail or the evidence crosses borders, we handle that too: our cross-border blackmail and extortion work covers clients and defendants on both sides of the Atlantic.
Do you represent clients from the USA?
Yes. What matters is a case connection to the UK, such as telephone records, DNS records, a UK bank account the money went to, a cryptocurrency exchange, or a UK email address or IP address. Where that link exists, we apply to the High Court in London for you in exactly the same way as for a UK client. You do not need to come to the UK.
Can you identify the blackmailer?
In many cases we can. We have specialist investigators in house, so everything stays with us. In HSX above, they identified the operation behind the demands within hours. And if the blackmailer cannot be identified straight away, nothing waits: the court grants the injunction against "persons unknown", we serve it through the same channels you have been using with the blackmailer, and we deal with the identification later.
Will the dating site cooperate?
In our experience, platforms respond to court orders in a way they do not always respond to complaints. An injunction changes the conversation: the platform is on notice of a High Court order, fake profiles come down, and the order can be served on the blackmailer through the platform. We deal with the platform for you as part of the work.
What does it cost?
Every matter starts with a fixed fee consultation with a solicitor, so your first step is a known cost rather than an open-ended commitment. These injunctions are complex and urgent work, so they are not cheap. Some cases, though, we can resolve without an injunction at all, by communicating directly with the blackmailer, particularly where you know who they are, so the consultation is worth having in any event. Wherever we can, we agree a fixed or capped fee for each stage, so you know your exposure before any work is done. But remember: time is of the essence.
Speak to us before the deadline, not after
Every case on this list started with a phone call from someone who thought their situation was hopeless. If you are being blackmailed by someone you met on a dating website, or through any relationship, contact us now. You can also read more about internet blackmail and sextortion and how to stop it, our guide to understanding and preventing dating blackmail, and emergency injunctions more generally. If you are looking for a lawyer to deal with a blackmailer for you, our UK blackmail lawyers can act for you the same day.
