The Social Reckoning – would it work in the UK?

This article was first published by International Employment Lawyer on 4 November 2026.

The new film, The Social Reckoning, tells the story of Frances Haugan, the Facebook whistleblower who risked her entire career and more to do what she thought was right to stop Facebook causing harm.

After becoming concerned that Facebook’s leadership was prioritising engagement and profit over user safety, ignoring risks to children’s mental health, as well as leading its users to extremist groups, Haugan began collecting internal documents and eventually shared them with an investigative journalist.  Their collaboration led to the publication of the “Facebook Files” and, eventually, her seeking whistleblower protection and testifying before the Senate.

The Facebook Files have led to lawsuits against Facebook and settlements being paid to families of alleged child victims, including, in the saddest cases, those resulting in suicide. In England, we have seen the introduction a new set of laws (including the Online Safety Act 2023) that attempt to protect children and adults online and there is more regulation on the horizon, including the banning of social media use by under 16s.

How does English law protect and encourage whistleblowers like Frances Haugen to speak up?

Haugen lived and worked in the US, but were she based in England, would she have been protected under existing whistleblowing law? The short answer is maybe, but, ultimately, this would likely depend on whether an Employment Tribunal agreed that it was reasonable for her to have made the disclosures to the media, rather than a regulator. Each stage is explained more below.

Would she have qualified for protection?

To qualify for whistleblowing protection under English law, the individual must fall within the extended definition of “worker” in the Employment Rights Act 1996.  That definition includes employees, agency workers, freelance workers and certain job applicants.  Haugen was an employee of Facebook and therefore would have qualified for protection provided she met the other statutory conditions.

In order to be protected, the individual concerned must have made a “qualifying disclosure”, meaning:

1. they must have made a disclosure of information (not just an allegation);

2. the disclosure of information must have related to one of the types of wrongdoing specified in the legislation. The heads of wrongdoing relevant in this case are:

• • a criminal offence;
  • failure to comply with a legal obligation;
  • risk to health and safety; and

3. the individual must reasonably believe that the information shows the wrongdoing (that it has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur) and that the disclosure is in the public interest.

It is clear in the film that Haugen has, genuinely held, deep concerns about the potential harm being caused to the health and safety of individuals across the world and, based on the information provided, that belief appears reasonable. She quite clearly believes that she is acting in the public interest as opposed to her own interests, as it is also made clear in the film that Haugen did not want to make the disclosures but felt morally compelled to do so.

Who she made the disclosures to matters

Under English law, qualifying disclosures are only, “protected disclosures” if they are made to through certain channels. Disclosure to the employer itself is expected to be the first line of disclosure, or to certain (but not all) regulatory bodies (“Prescribed Persons”). Disclosures made to the media will only be protected in strict circumstances where it is deemed reasonable in all the circumstances. Factors considered when determining this include whether the individual:

• had previously disclosed the matter internally;
• reasonably believed that they would be subjected to a detriment or that evidence would be destroyed if they reported internally;
• the seriousness of the wrongdoing;
• whether the wrongdoing is continuing or is likely to occur in the future.

In the film, when Haugen tries to raise her concerns with two colleagues at Facebook. They tell her to stop raising the issue and not to put the concerns in writing, the risk of detriment was high, and the matter was serious and continuing. This would weigh in her favour, but it is difficult to say with any certainty whether a Tribunal would accept that Haugen’s disclosures were reasonable in the circumstances. Tribunals tend to take a dim view of disclosures to the media where there are alternatives.  For example, a Tribunal may expect Haugen to make her reports to the relevant prescribed bodies first – Ofcom or the Children’s Commissioner, for example – before making a wider disclosure to the media.

Protected from what?

Let’s say, for the purposes of this article, that Haugen would have met the conditions described and, therefore, have been protected under whistleblowing legislation in the UK – what would that have meant?

Whilst US whistleblowers can stand to receive significant financial rewards for disclosures that lead to a successful prosecution, their English counterparts receive no such incentive. The most English law offers is protection from detriment or dismissal because of their protected disclosures.

In Haugen’s case, she resigned before her disclosures were made public.  Protection from dismissal would therefore not have applied.

Protection from detriment continues after employment but is limited.  The detriment must arise in connection with the former employment relationship.  For example, failure to give a reference or making defamatory statements about a former employee may amount to a detriment if they are closely linked to the protected disclosures made during employment.  There is also a causation test – the individual would need to demonstrate that the detrimental treatment was on the grounds of their whistleblowing.

In reality, there is little protection for whistleblowers like Haugen if their reputation has been tarnished either by their previous employer or simply by being publicly known as a whistleblower.  Whistleblowing protections under English law do not protect from arguably the most damaging practical consequence: reputational harm.

Proposals for reform

The Government has recently launched a new consultation on changes to the UK whistleblowing regime.

A few of the more significant proposals include:

• the possible introduction of a statutory duty on employers to have whistleblowing processes/procedures in place and, if so, what that would look like;
• introduction of a Serious Fraud Office whistleblower reward scheme where whistleblowers may receive a financial reward.
• whether the requirement that the whistleblower must reasonably believe their information is “substantially true” should be removed when disclosing to a prescribed person; and
• whether trade unions should become a recognised statutory disclosure route (i.e. whether there should be a new explicit route for disclosure to trade unions with the lowest protection threshold).

Reform has been on the horizon for quite some time, and the launch of this consultation is a positive step, but change is not imminent. In the meantime, English law may protect whistleblowers from the worst legal consequences, but it does not yet do enough to encourage them to come forward in the first place.

If you’re considering raising concerns about wrongdoing at work, or reviewing your organisation’s whistleblowing procedures, early legal advice can help ensure the right protections are in place. Navigating the process carefully from the outset can be critical to reducing risk and safeguarding your position.