14-03-2025
Former Chanel employee ordered to take ‘whistleblowing' video down in court battle
A former Chanel employee has been ordered to take down a TikTok video in which she makes damaging allegations against senior executives at the company.
Charlotte Skeens, who worked at the fashion brand's office in Mayfair, central London, told the High Court she believed it was in the public interest for her claims to be heard and that they amounted to whistleblowing.
Lawyers for Chanel argued the 31-year-old posted the video for financial reasons and that she did not really believe the claims she was making were true.
The court heard she was compared to Lauren Weisberger, who wrote the bestselling novel The Devil Wears Prada, partly based on her experiences at Vogue magazine.
The judge, Mr Justice Sweeting, ruled that whether or not the allegations she made in the video were in the public interest would have to be tested at a trial in April.
Until then, he ordered that the footage, which he said could harm the company's reputation, must be removed from TikTok as it contained 'derogatory' information about the company.
The court heard that Ms Skeens, who worked at the company from 2019 to 2022, posted a clip on the social media site last week.
The video, which makes several allegations against senior executives at Chanel, has now been seen at least 146,000 times.
The specific claims that Ms Skeens made against the senior executives were only referred to in court as X and Y.
The court heard that Ms Skeens had previously made a settlement with her former employees in 2022 which prevented her from publishing confidential information.
In summer 2024, she made posts online about issues at the company, of which Chanel subsequently became aware.
The case was due to go to trial in March but on the eve of the hearing Ms Skeens made another agreement with the company in which she said she would not post confidential information or make derogatory statements.
'Must be for personal gain'
Niran de Silva KC for Mishcon de Reya, representing Chanel, claimed that Ms Skeens had been seeking to gain financially by posting the clips online.
He said that in July 2024 she spoke to a 'promoter' and discussed allegations that she was planning to disclose via social media, a podcast and also talked about even a book or a film.
He said: 'She has done the same again now and we say it must be for personal gain in some way.
'She obviously denies that, but it is apparent.'
Mr de Silva said Ms Skeens claimed the allegations were part of a wider 'cultural' issue across the company.
Ms Skeens claimed she viewed the comments she made in the video as being 'whistleblowing' and she wanted to speak 'openly and freely' about them.
She said the legal action against her was essentially a Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation (Slapp).
Slapps are defined by the Solicitors Regulation Authority as 'a misuse of the legal system through bringing or threatening claims that are unmeritorious or characterised by abusive tactics, in order to stifle lawful scrutiny and publication'.
In February, Sir Keir Starmer refused to ban lawyers from using the tactic despite pledging to clamp down on 'intolerable' intimidation.
The Government said it did not intend to introduce new legislation to target 'Slapps', despite being urged to do so by peers in the House of Lords.
Ms Skeens said the video had been shared by others widely and since she had published at least 30 people had contacted her about their own experiences.
She argued that if she was forced to take down the video, people would assume it was the result of legal action.
She said: 'The message that sends about the company might discourage other witnesses from coming forward because they feel it will happen to them and even if you do speak up it will be detrimental to their behaviour.'
Mr Justice Sweeting said the interim injunction would remain in place until the next hearing on April 30.
