M&S is back after online shopping was paused following cyber attack
Metro journalists select and curate the products that feature on our site. If you make a purchase via links on this page we will earn commission – learn more
Marks and Spencer paused its online orders for months amid the cyber attack. While you could still head to stores and shop IRL, stock was limited and you couldn't always find the pieces you had seen online.
Every week since the end of April when the cyber attack happened following the Easter Bank Holiday weekend, we have been refreshing the site to see if it is back in full swing, but to no avail. To be totally honest, we didn't know what the future of online shopping at M&S was going to look like.
Thankfully, M&S has today announced the freeze on online orders is finally over, and we couldn't be happier – don't think our bank account can say the same.
In an Instagram post, penned by M&S' Managing Director for Fashion, Home and Beauty, John, it read: 'We are bringing back online shopping this week. A selection of our bestselling fashion ranges will be available for home delivery to England, Scotland and Wales. More of our fashion, home and beauty products will be added every day and we will resume deliveries to Northern Ireland and Click and Collect in the coming weeks. Thank you sincerely for your support and for shopping with us.'
Over the last few weeks we have been saving a few staples to our digital wishlist so when M&S opens its virtual checkout we are ready to hit 'Pay Now'.
From dresses to shorts, shirts, skirts and shoes, here is everything in our basket now.
From the shirred bust, the subtle ruffle on the edge of the straps and billowy A-line maxi skirt, these features are reminiscent of Dôen designs, but for less. Crafted from 100% cotton, this one and done dress is lightweight, breathable and fuss-free, which is exactly what we want in a summer heatwave. Available in petite, regular and tall, ranging from UK dress size 6 to 18, as well as a black colourway. BUY NOW FOR £35
Whether you are heading to a summer party, a city break, beach break, or a destination wedding, this versatile dress can be styled for more formal events and off duty casual occasions. The buttermilk shade is hugely popular, as is the minuscule polka dot print, so this design nails two trends in one. BUY NOW FOR £99
We live in wide leg jeans, and are desperate to slip this relaxed fit pair on.With a high waist, straight leg that skims the legs from the waist down, these jeans promise comfort and style. Crafted from gentle cotton with 1% elastane that provides just enough stretch to hug the body without gaping. While the jeans are available in six washes, stock is limited. BUY NOW FOR £35
If you have a holiday on the horizon, or are preparing for the UK's heatwave, a pair of loose fit and lightweight linen shorts are a must have. This pair are longer in length than hot pants (thank goodness), but not too long they resemble men's surf shorts. The relaxed fit contrasts the elasticated waist, which can be cinched in with the drawstring for a secure fit. Available in five colours. BUY NOW FOR £22.50
I have been waiting months to get my hands on the sell-out Leather Loafers. I patiently waited and waited for these to restock, and when they did the cyber attack took place and I have not been able to get my hands on the versatile loafer. The timeless smart shoe has been crafted from leather with M&S' signature Insolia Flex interior that provides necessary cushioning on the soles of your feet, which is key when pounding the pavement in a pair of flats. BUY NOW FOR £55
I love a denim jacket in the summer, and a shacket in the transitional seasons. Combine the two and it may just be the solution to all my needs. Crafted from cotton denim fabric, which is comfortable and breathable to wear almost all year long. The boxy fit, hip-length and dropped shoulder, makes this a relaxed staple to throw on over dresses, tanks and tees paired with jeans or shorts. BUY NOW FOR £29.50
Follow Metro across our social channels, on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram
Share your views in the comments below
MORE: From Space NK to Mango – here's 23 items our shopping expert is buying this weekend
MORE: I tried Molly-Mae Hague's holiday makeup routine – and I'm never going back
MORE: This skincare product completely transformed my skin – I get everyone to use it!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
39 minutes ago
- Reuters
Acquisitions of US Public Companies by Non-US Acquirors Practical Law The Journal
Non-US investors continue to play an important role in the US M&A environment. In 2024, approximately one-quarter of announced transactions with US public company targets (43 of 169 transactions) involved a non-US acquiror. This activity accounted for about $91.6 billion (19%) of the aggregate transaction value. (Deal Point Data (Mar. 16, 2025) (subscription required).) (For more on US public M&A in 2024, see What's Market: 2024 Year-End Public M&A Wrap-Up on Practical Law.) Robust public company deal activity was initially expected in 2025 due to increasingly favorable domestic conditions compared to prior years, such as strong US economic growth relative to other western economies in recent years, declining borrowing costs, and indications that a more relaxed US regulatory environment may materialize. While M&A activity in the first half of 2025 has generally faltered due to global economic uncertainty and market turbulence, observers remain hopeful that inbound investment activity will accelerate in the latter half of 2025, driven in part by a desire among non-US investors to mitigate their exposure to the Trump administration's protective trade policies. (For the latest US tariff-related developments, see Key Developments Under the Trump Administration Regarding Imports and Tariffs: 2025 Tracker on Practical Law.) While facial similarities may exist between certain aspects of a US public company transaction and an M&A transaction outside the US, there are significant substantive divergences in practice and policy due to the unique legal and macroeconomic environment in the US. It is therefore imperative that non-US investors approach a potential US public company acquisition not only with an awareness of these differences but with the assistance of legal and financial advisors that have a recognized track record in the US market. This article highlights key considerations that non-US acquirors should understand before pursuing M&A with a US public target, including: Due diligence. Transaction disclosure. Transaction structures. Directors' fiduciary duties. Regulatory issues. Shareholder litigation. (For a collection of resources to assist counsel in negotiated M&A transactions involving a US public company target, see Public Mergers Toolkit on Practical Law.) Due Diligence A central objective of an acquiror's due diligence investigation is uncovering and understanding the risks associated with a potential acquisition. Due diligence findings also inform an acquiror's: Negotiating strategy. Assessment of the optimal transaction structure. Integration analysis. Post-closing integration strategy. Due diligence investigations of US public company targets are often conducted on an accelerated timeline, and it is customary in US public company transactions to permit prospective bidders to undertake only limited confirmatory due diligence. US securities laws require public companies to regularly make detailed public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding a broad array of topics, and potential acquirors therefore typically already have access to a fulsome public record regarding their target before formally proposing a transaction. Prospective acquirors are generally expected to have availed themselves of this public information and be in a position to move quickly to submit a binding offer. (For more on US public company periodic reporting and disclosure obligations, see Periodic Reporting and Disclosure Obligations: Overview on Practical Law.) The object of US public company due diligence is to efficiently confirm and supplement findings based on the public record. This is typically accomplished through the submission of a targeted list of questions aimed at clarifying and supplementing the potential acquiror's existing understanding of the target's business. The target may also facilitate oral diligence sessions with the target's management team so that the potential acquiror can better understand the target's business from the perspective of management, as well as quickly resolve any queries for management regarding operational items. It is important for a prospective bidder to demonstrate that it has already made a good faith effort to obtain a general understanding of the target business because a broad 'kitchen sink' approach to diligence is almost certain to cause friction with a US public company target. Non-US investors may be unaccustomed to relying on public information for due diligence purposes and view information provided directly by the target as more reliable. However, they should be aware that the bulk of the information regarding the target will be derived from the target's public filings. These filings are governed by US securities laws, and there are potentially significant consequences for the inclusion of materially misleading statements or omissions in them, including: Enforcement action by the SEC against the target, which may lead to fines and other penalties. Shareholder litigation based on deficient disclosures and reputational damage. (For more information, see Securities Litigation and Enforcement: Overview on Practical Law.) All of these risks help provide prospective acquirors with some assurance about the veracity of information included in public filings. Acquirors can also protect against undisclosed risks that were not uncovered in the due diligence process by negotiating for comprehensive representations and warranties in the acquisition agreement. The representations and warranties in a US-style acquisition agreement serve two functions: They encourage further disclosure of risks by the target in the schedule of exceptions to the acquisition agreement. The representations and warranties are qualified and excepted based on information provided in this schedule. (For more information, see Disclosure Schedules: Mergers and Acquisitions on Practical Law.) They give the acquiror the ability to walk away from the transaction if the representations and warranties given by the target are not accurate (to a negotiated standard) at closing. Representations and warranties serve to create alignment between the interests of the target and acquiror with respect to disclosure and address the inherent information asymmetry between these parties by motivating fulsome disclosure by the target. (For an overview of due diligence in US public M&A and key guidance on organizing, implementing, and conducting a comprehensive due diligence review, see Due Diligence for Public Mergers and Acquisitions on Practical Law.) Transaction Disclosure Generally, there is no requirement under US law to disclose a potential acquisition before the execution of definitive agreements, nor is there any requirement to correct rumors or misstatements by third parties or make a binding statement regarding the acquiror's intention to move forward with a transaction following a leak. However, a US public company target may be required to disclose ongoing negotiations or respond to a leak if: The negotiations are material and the target is trading in its own securities. The target is responsible for the leak or is in the process of registering any of its securities. The disclosure is required to prevent prior statements made by the target from becoming materially misleading. A target must announce entry into a merger agreement and file it with a current report on Form 8-K with the SEC, though schedules or similar attachments may be omitted if they do not contain information material to an investment or a voting decision or not otherwise disclosed. A detailed chronology of transaction negotiations must also be disclosed in the publicly filed proxy statement used to solicit shareholder votes, as well as in public filings for tender offers. (For more on disclosure in US public mergers, including press releases, current reports on Form 8-K, merger proxy statements, and other communications with stockholders, see Public Mergers Disclosure: Overview on Practical Law.) Transaction Structures There are two principal mechanisms used to acquire US public companies in friendly transactions: A one-step or statutory merger, in which one legal entity is merged with and into a surviving legal entity. While there are various formulations that a one-step merger may take, the most common is a reverse triangular merger in which the acquiror creates a merger subsidiary, which is subsequently merged with and into the target company with the target surviving as the acquiror's subsidiary. A two-step merger, structured as an initial public offer to purchase the target company's shares followed by a statutory merger. Mergers are governed by the state laws applicable in the target's jurisdiction of organization. In the case of a two-step merger, the offer to purchase the target company's shares must also comply with federal securities laws. (For more on transaction structures in public M&A, see Public Mergers: Overview and Tender Offers: Overview on Practical Law.) One-Step Merger A one-step merger requires the acquiror to negotiate the terms of the merger with the target's management, board of directors, or both. The boards of the target and the acquiror each approve the investigation of a potential transaction and task a small group of individuals with confidentially exploring a potential transaction and, if appropriate, negotiating a definitive merger agreement with the assistance of legal and financial advisors. Once a merger agreement has been agreed to between the acquiror and target's deal teams, it must be formally approved by the boards of both the target and the acquiror and recommended to the target's shareholders for approval. While the parties may enter into the merger agreement once board approval is obtained, consummation of the transaction is subject to approval by the target's shareholders, and the target must promptly commence the process for coordinating an annual or special shareholders' meeting to consider approval of the transaction. Unlike in certain foreign jurisdictions, no judicial review or approval is required for the transaction. Once the parties enter into the merger agreement, the pending transaction becomes public knowledge because the target public company is required to announce it by filing a current report on Form 8-K with the SEC. The target must also file a proxy statement with the SEC containing information regarding the transaction as a part of its shareholder consent solicitation process (for more information, see Proxy Statements: Public Mergers on Practical Law). It typically takes 10 to 12 weeks to obtain shareholder approval, though this process may vary based on state law and meeting requirements in the target's organizational documents. During the period between public announcement and the time shareholder approval is obtained, the transaction is at risk of being frustrated by a competing bid from an interloper. Acquirors therefore attempt to negotiate for protective features to ensure that their position remains equal to or better than that of any interlopers. Protective features may include: Break-up fees, which require the target to pay the thwarted acquiror a fee if the transaction fails due to a competing bid (for more information, see Break-Up or Termination Fees on Practical Law). The right to match a competing bid. Force the vote provisions requiring that the target submit the proposed transaction for a shareholder vote. No-shop provisions preventing the target from soliciting competing bids (for more information, see No-Shops and Their Exceptions on Practical Law). The acquiror may also seek to enter into voting agreements with major shareholders that contractually bind those shareholders to vote in favor of the acquiror's proposed transaction, or even allow the target to solicit competing bids before entry into a formal merger agreement with the acquiror, to minimize the risk that a competing bidder emerges at a later stage. However, as discussed below, deal protections must be carefully weighed against the target directors' fiduciary duties (see Director Fiduciary Duties below). Two-Step Merger In a negotiated two-step merger, the acquiror negotiates and enters into a merger agreement with the target and then publicly launches an offer to purchase the target's shares directly from its shareholders for cash (tender offer), securities of the acquiror (exchange offer), or some combination of both. Federal securities laws require, among other things, that: The acquiror publicly file a Schedule TO with the SEC containing detailed information regarding the transaction, such as the offer price and conditions of the offer (for more information, see Schedule TO on Practical Law). The offer remains open for at least 20 business days. If there is a material change to the terms or conditions of the offer (for example, a change in the offer price or the number of securities being purchased), federal securities laws may impose a mandatory extension to the offer period of up to ten business days. Non-US acquirors considering a two-step merger should be aware that tendered shares may be withdrawn by the target's shareholders until the offer period expires. Therefore, similar to a one-step merger, interloper risk remains high from the time the offer to purchase is publicly announced until the offer period expires. If at the conclusion of the offer period the acquiror has obtained enough shares to approve a merger as a shareholder under applicable state law (typically 50% to two-thirds of shares entitled to vote thereon), it proceeds with a back-end statutory merger to complete its acquisition of the target. In various states, no shareholder approval for the back-end merger is required if the acquiror has obtained a specified percentage of the target's shares (typically 90% but in some states less) and certain other conditions are met. Two-step mergers can be completed in as little as six to seven weeks and have historically been favored in transactions that do not require intensive regulatory approvals or long periods between signing and closing. However, recent changes to the US antitrust regime are expected to substantially increase the time required to prepare certain filings, so the utility of a two-step structure may be reduced moving forward (see Regulatory Issues below). Additionally, the usage of securities as transaction consideration generally increases the timeline in either transaction structure because federal securities laws require the acquiror to file a registration statement for these securities (for more information, see Registration Statement: Form S-4 and Business Combinations on Practical Law). Non-US acquirors that are not already registered with the SEC should note that the time and expense of this registration may limit the desirability of using securities as consideration and require them to disclose information about themselves and their shareholders that may not already be in the public domain. Director Fiduciary Duties The fiduciary duties of directors of US corporations may differ significantly from those in a non-US acquiror's jurisdiction. In the US, directors' fiduciary duties are established by the corporate law applicable in the target's jurisdiction of incorporation. Most commonly, US public companies are incorporated in Delaware, where directors owe two core fiduciary duties to the corporation and its shareholders: The duty of care, which requires directors to act in an informed and considered manner and exercise the care that a prudent businessperson would when considering a business decision. The duty of loyalty, which requires directors to act in good faith on an independent and disinterested basis and to make decisions in the best interest of the corporation and its shareholders. Directors of companies incorporated in other US states are generally subject to similar fiduciary duties. Different considerations may apply if the US target is a non-corporate entity. Directors' decisions are generally entitled to judicial deference under the 'business judgment rule' if challenged in court by shareholders or other stakeholders. The business judgment rule establishes a rebuttable presumption that directors have acted in accordance with their fiduciary duties where the director's impugned decisions can be attributed to any rational business purpose and there is insufficient evidence to disseat the presumption that the director was informed and acted in good faith for the best interest of the corporation and its shareholders. Delaware corporate law affords directors this high standard of protection based on the fundamental principle that directors, not shareholders or the courts, are responsible for managing the business and affairs of the corporations they serve. However, directors' conduct and decision-making processes may be scrutinized more carefully in M&A transactions due to the heightened potential for conflicts of interests between the corporation and its shareholders, and directors of the target corporation, who may seek to entrench themselves or obtain other personal benefit from the transaction. Once it becomes clear in a cash transaction that a change of control of the target corporation is inevitable, the object of target directors' fiduciary duties shifts toward seeking to secure the transaction that offers the best value reasonably available to the target's shareholders. Directors' duties in this context are colloquially referred to as 'Revlon' duties and require that directors have a reasonable basis to conclude that the price obtained for the target's shareholders is the best available. This assessment is made without regard to the interests of other stakeholders, such as employees, or the transaction's consistency with the target's existing business plans. There are several common procedures directors employ in these circumstances to assist with price discovery and to demonstrate they have satisfied their Revlon duties. For example, directors may obtain an opinion from a financial advisor on the fairness of the consideration, or conduct an auction or targeted process aimed at soliciting offers from multiple bidders. Importantly, Revlon duties prohibit directors from agreeing to coercive or preclusive deal protections and, in the case of a transaction requiring shareholder approval, require that the target's directors remain free to change their recommendation of the transaction to shareholders. While ultimately dependent on the precise facts and circumstances of a particular transaction, granting a prospective acquiror the right to match a competing offer or including a termination fee of up to 4% of equity value are not typically deemed to be coercive or preclusive measures. In a change of control transaction where it is determined that an actual conflict of interest exists, directors' conduct and the terms of the transaction are not subject to judicial deference. Instead, they are generally reviewed according to an onerous 'entire fairness' standard, though Delaware has recently introduced new statutory safe harbors that may offer protection from the application of this standard for certain controlling stockholder and interested officer and director transactions. This standard presumes that the transaction was tainted by the conflict of interest and requires directors to demonstrate the entire fairness of the transaction. To do so, directors must provide evidence of fair dealing in the procedural aspects of the transaction and that they obtained a fair price in light of the relevant economic and financial considerations of the transaction. It is difficult but not impossible for directors to demonstrate the entire fairness of a conflicted transaction. (For more on the duties of care and loyalty under Delaware law, see Fiduciary Duties of the Board of Directors on Practical Law.) Regulatory Issues Foreign investment in US public companies is often subject to regulatory approval and notification requirements, which vary according to the nature of the transaction. Regimes of particular note for non-US investors are: Antitrust (competition) review under the HSR Act (for more information, see Hart-Scott-Rodino Act: Overview on Practical Law). Review for national security implications by CFIUS (for more information, see CFIUS Review of Acquisitions and Investments in the January 2025 issue of Practical Law The Journal). In recent years, the US antitrust authorities and CFIUS have demonstrated increasing willingness to intervene in transactions, though it remains to be seen whether this trend will continue under the Trump administration. Given the new administration's posture regarding foreign investment in sensitive assets and industries, it is likely that CFIUS scrutiny regarding investments by non-US acquirors will remain elevated or intensify. The HSR Regime Under the HSR Act, pending acquisitions that will result in the acquiror owning more than a specified amount of voting securities or assets of a target engaged directly or indirectly in US commerce must be reported to and approved by the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice (DOJ) prior to consummation. These transactions are subject to a minimum 30-day waiting period (lowered to 15 days for tender offers) that commences on the filing of a pre-merger notification form. The pre-merger notification form requires that the parties provide extensive information regarding themselves and the transaction, including materials and emails by or for senior management or directors relating to the transaction's competitive implications. The parties may even be required to disclose unsolicited pitch books or other materials prepared by their advisors if they touch on competitive implications. If the reviewing agency determines that further inquiry is required after reviewing the pre-merger notification form, it may issue a second request for information. A second request can substantially lengthen the timeline of a transaction, as well as require the parties to agree to certain concessions, including divestitures, to obtain approval for the transaction. In recent years, the US antitrust authorities and CFIUS have demonstrated increasing willingness to intervene in transactions, though it remains to be seen whether this trend will continue under the Trump administration. Given the potential for an extended review process, the parties typically seek to prepare and file the pre-merger notification form as early as possible. Because recent amendments to the HSR form have significantly expanded the information required in the filing, HSR filings require a substantial amount of time to prepare and close coordination with counsel and senior management. (For more on recent changes to the HSR form, see HSR Rule Changes in the January 2025 issue of Practical Law The Journal.) The CFIUS Regime Acquisitions of US companies by non-US buyers may attract regulatory scrutiny due to national security concerns. CFIUS is an interagency committee comprising the heads of several governmental departments and offices, including the Department of Homeland Security, the DOJ, and the State Department. Federal legislation empowers CFIUS to initiate a review of transactions involving non-US investors that could potentially affect national security, including the acquisition of a US target collecting sensitive personal data of US citizens or involved in critical technologies or infrastructure. Unlike under the HSR regime, it is generally voluntary to provide CFIUS with notice of a pending transaction. Nevertheless, voluntary notice is typically given where there is a reasonable likelihood that a proposed transaction will attract scrutiny from CFIUS. There is a strong incentive to obtain preclearance of this type of transaction because the acquiror could otherwise be required to agree to divestitures or other remedial actions post-closing if CFIUS independently initiates a review after learning of the transaction. If voluntary notice is given, a 45-day review period commences, after which the transaction is either cleared or proceeds to an investigation period that may last up to an additional 45 days. If the investigation determines the transaction presents national security risks, CFIUS may seek mitigative measures from the parties, refer the transaction to the president for determination of whether to block it, or both. Referrals to the president are rare because a transaction that is not cleared during investigation by CFIUS is most often withdrawn by the parties and abandoned or renegotiated due to the failure to obtain required regulatory approvals. Shareholder Litigation Shareholder litigation is accepted as a standard part of US public company acquisitions. These transactions are routinely subject to claims by the target's shareholders that the directors failed to satisfy their fiduciary duties, or allegations that a disclosure made by the target in SEC filings contained material misstatements or omissions. Acquirors may also be named as defendants in the lawsuits, particularly where the acquiror had already obtained a toehold in the target and is alleged to have used its influence as a major shareholder to extract value at the expense of other shareholders. (For more on shareholder securities litigation claims, see Securities Litigation and Enforcement: Overview on Practical Law.) Shareholder litigation rarely delays the consummation of a transaction or results in material damages or settlements relative to the overall transaction value. Rather, the primary consequences of shareholder litigation in US public company transactions tend to be the incurrence of attorneys' fees and the time and expense of preparing additional disclosures regarding ongoing litigation that is required to be included in SEC filings made in connection with the transaction. Given the prevalence of shareholder litigation in the US, it is also customary for the acquiror of a US public company to agree to indemnify the target's directors and officers for any lawsuits that may be levied against them for their service in such capacities. A portion of the cost of indemnifying the target's directors and officers may be offset against the target's existing directors and officers insurance policies, if any exist. Acquirors should engage with counsel and their counterparties early on in the transaction to ensure that all parties understand best practices for minimizing the risk of shareholder litigation. For example, transactions involving a perceived conflict of interest, such as those initiated by management or a controlling shareholder of the target company, tend to have greater incidence of shareholder litigation and higher settlement costs. Non-US acquirors should be mindful that the broad scope of the discovery process in US litigation may require them to produce extensive correspondence relating to the transaction (such as emails and text messages). Therefore, all correspondence from the beginning to the end of a transaction should be created under the assumption that it may become public in connection with litigation. Regulators may also request to review deal correspondence when considering whether to grant approval of or challenge a transaction. Additionally, acquirors may be required to bear the expense of any post-closing settlement costs or damages rendered in ongoing 'stock drop' litigation against a US public company target, which is a prevalent form of securities litigation in the US where the shareholders of a public company bring a class action lawsuit alleging that false or misleading statements in the company's public filings caused a significant drop in share price. These lawsuits often take several years to resolve, and associated costs should be factored into the acquiror's assessment of the value expected to be obtained from the transaction.
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
M&S security warning as customers told to make 'immediate' changes to online account
Shoppers who make online purchases with any retailer have been urged to make this "immediate" change. M&S shoppers have been urged to take immediate action with their online accounts. It comes just after the retailer restarted online orders after it was attacked by cyber criminals. Customers have been advised to exercise caution and update their online accounts before proceeding with any new transactions. This is because attackers employed a method known as 'credential stuffing', warns cyber security specialists. This technique is employed by cyber hackers to steal personal credentials from customers such as as email addresses, usernames, passwords, home addresses, and transaction histories, reports Birmingham Live. Cyber security guru and Shift Key Cyber co-founder Sarah Knowles said: "'Credential stuffing' is when attackers target customers who use the same password and username for multiple accounts. Once they have gained access to one site, they can then successfully replicate the method on other sites. "The primary motivation is financial, but it can also lead to identity theft." Sarah explained. "All M&S customers, in fact any customers of an online retailer that has been a victim of an attack - change your password immediately." "The hackers will look for people who haven't changed their password and could use this to steal your data. This needs to be the first step you take before making any online purchases." Sarah further advised: "Spend an hour reviewing all of the login details you've used when online shopping, and make sure none of them are the same across different retailers (including M&S). "If you can't remember where you do or don't have an account, checking your email can be a good place to start - by reviewing the retailer mailing lists you are on. Make sure you check your spam and junk folders too." Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. Sarah advised: "What many people don't realise is that there are tools that will store all of your passwords, so you don't have to remember every single one. Password managers are built into most laptop, tablet and phone devices, so make sure you use them. "When setting up a new password, always use multifactor authentication if there is the option to. This means there is an extra layer of security, by using a secondary login method before actually signing in to your account," Sarah added. She continued: "The longer the password the better. You should aim to use a minimum of three random words to create your password. Do not use words such as a pet's name, favourite sport's team, date of birth or address. "These are all incredibly easy to hack and will put you at high risk of becoming a victim of an attack." It comes just after Marks and Spencer restarted all of its online shopper operations this week after the service was 'temporarily halted' on Friday, April 25, due to a major cyber attack from a gang known as Scattered Spider. It wasn't just online orders that were affected, as shoppers also noticed less stock on Food Hall shelves, with the retailer confirming that it also had to put a pause on some of its popular meal deals. The warning for online shoppers also follows a slew of ransomware attacks on major UK high street retailers from cyber criminals, with the Co-op and Harrods also being targeted by different groups of hackers.
Scottish Sun
an hour ago
- Scottish Sun
Jake Paul admits proposing to Jutta Leerdam was more nerve-wracking than any fight and he needed help of strong whiskey
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) JAKE PAUL revealed proposing to his partner Jutta Leerdam was more nerve-wracking than any fight - and he needed strong whiskey in his corner. The sports power couple went official in April 2024 and have gone from strength to strength since. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 8 Jake Paul says proposing to his partner Jutta Leerdam was more nerve-wracking than any fight Credit: Instagram / @jakepaul 8 He popped the question in St. Lucia Credit: Instagram / @jakepaul 8 The two have been dating since April 2024 Credit: Instagram / @jakepaul 8 He admits no fight was as daunting as popping the question Credit: Esther Lin Paul popped the question in March during a romantic getaway in St. Lucia - getting down on one knee behind a beautiful lake background. And the YouTuber-turned-boxer - who has 11 wins in his 12 professional fights - admits no opponent has struck the same fear into him. After requiring some Dutch courage, he said: "By far I was way more nervous to propose than than for any fight. "So yeah, to all the men who are getting ready to propose, some whiskey before it's very helpful." READ MORE IN BOXING IT'S ALL GLOVE Jake Paul leaks AJ's DMs goading him about being KO'd as trash talk hots up Cruiserweight Paul began dating champion speedskater Jutta just months after his first and so far only loss - a split-decision defeat to Tommy Fury. And he revealed how the Dutch Winter Olympian helped him overcome the setback in the ring. The boxer became an uncle in September when brother Logan and Danish supermodel fiancee Nina Agdal welcomed baby daughter Esme into the world. Paul plans for kids of his own but has warned he will wait for Jutta to compete at the 2026 Winter Olympics in Italy. 8 CASINO SPECIAL - BEST CASINO BONUSES FROM £10 DEPOSITS The newly-engaged enjoy a long-distance relationship due to their training schedules - pitting them over 4,000 miles away from each other. Jutta, 26, is coached in her homeland of the Netherlands while Ohio-born Paul, 26, has relocated to Puerto Rico where he has a custom £3million gym. Jake Paul leaks 's***-talking' private messages with Anthony Joshua goading him about being KO'd as trash talk ramps up He has his team out with him in the Caribbean island - where he also lives in a £13m mansion - including the famously tough conditioning coach Larry Wade. Paul revealed: "His track workouts are absolutely brutal, long runs, sprinting. Not a lot of breaks. It's hot in Puerto Rico and muggy. "So you really find out who you are, like I said, in those moments and I just have that voice while I'm running that's wanting to quit but you just have to push through that. "And I think that's the art of fighting and in the ring you have those moments where your body is telling you to give up but you just have to push to the next round and keep going." Paul returns on June 28 in California against former middleweight world champion Julio Cesar Chavez Jr, 39, live on DAZN PPV. And he will do so back at cruiserweight having gone to heavyweight in November for his controversial clash with Mike Tyson - who made a comeback aged 58. Paul had hoped to capitalise on the 100 MILLION viewers he had tune in on Netflix by holding shocks talks to fight either Canelo Alvarez, 34, or Gervonta Davis, 30. But when both collapsed, he turned to Chavez, the son of Mexican icon Julio Cesar Sr who was also beaten on points by Canelo in 2017. Paul said: "I wanted the hardest and the biggest fights, which was first Canelo then Gervonta fell through. "And then at any given point in time we're negotiating or talking with five to six fighters to see who's down and ready to fight and making a date happen. "And after Canelo and Gervonta, we were talking to multiple people and Chavez was the one to step up, that made sense for me to stay active and get a fight in June. "So really it's just the long line and I just need more time but I'm gonna get to all of these names when the stars aligned." 8 The couple enjoy a long-distance relationship Credit: Instagram / @juttaleerdam 8 Jake holds Logan's baby daughter Esme Credit: INSTAGRAM
