Former tennis star and Victorian Liberal deputy leader Sam Groth and his wife Brittany are launching legal action over recent News Corp stories. Their lawyers allege the Herald Sun pieces crossed the line—venturing into defamation and breaching Australia’s new privacy laws.

---

What’s the Story Behind the Lawsuit?

Why Sam and Brittany Are Taking Action

• The Groths’ legal team contends two recent Herald Sun articles—and associated social media posts—imply the couple’s relationship began under inappropriate circumstances.
• The coverage questioned the timing of their romance—Groth reportedly aged 23–24 and Brittany 16–17 when they met. Their lawyers say this reporting caused “extreme distress” to Brittany and was neither newsworthy nor respectful of privacy .

Use of New Privacy Tort Laws

• Under laws effective from 10 June 2025, individuals can sue for a serious invasion of privacy without needing to show financial harm, provided there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy and the breach was intentional or reckless .
• Groth’s lawyers assert that Herald Sun’s stories fit these criteria and were more gossip than journalism. They’ve demanded removal of the articles and a formal apology .

---

Political Fallout

Liberal Party Lines and Defences

• The controversy revived scrutiny from both sides of politics. Labor’s Health Minister Mary‑Anne Thomas criticized the relationship’s timing as inappropriate.
• Meanwhile, Liberal leader Brad Battin and several party colleagues condemned the reporting as a political attack aimed at character assassination. Premier Jacinta Allan declined to comment, calling it an internal party matter .

Groth’s Statement to the Press

• Sam Groth called the articles “malicious gossip” and demanded they be taken down and retracted by 5 pm. His legal team, led by defamation barrister Patrick George of Giles George, threatened formal legal action if the publisher didn’t comply .

---

Breaking Down Australia’s Privacy Tort Laws

What Changed on 10 June 2025

• The Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 introduced a statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy, coming into force on that date.
• Plaintiffs no longer need to prove actual harm—only that the privacy breach was serious, intentional or reckless, and outweighed any public interest in disclosure .

Who Is Exempt, and What Remedies Are Available

• Media outlets still retain exemptions when publishing journalistic content in the public interest.
• Remedies include injunctions, court orders, apologies, and compensation (including for emotional distress). Truth is not a defense under the privacy tort, unlike defamation law .

---

Why It Matters

For Politicians and Public Figures

• While public figures usually face tougher standards, the new tort means their private personal details can still be protected if they’re shared without consent and cause serious distress.
• Groth’s case could set a precedent on how the press handles personal lives—especially relationships involving power imbalances.

For Media Considering Reporting Private Details

• Publishers now face double legal exposure: defamation and privacy tort claims.
• Even accurate information could trigger liability if deemed reckless, and truth is not a defense under the privacy tort—raising the stakes for press coverage .

---

What Happens Next?

• The Groths’ legal letter demands immediate removal of the articles, a front-page print and website apology for 48 hours, plus the names of the sources behind the reporting.
• If News Corp doesn’t comply by the deadline, a formal defamation and privacy lawsuit will be filed.
• Courts may face a test case applying the privacy tort to journalistic reporting.

---

Final Thoughts

Sam and Brittany Groth’s action highlights a new frontier in Australian law—where personal privacy has legal teeth. At stake is how the press balances public interest with respect and legal responsibility.

Watch closely: if the case proceeds, it could redefine how media covers politicians—especially when personal lives become political issues.

---