A warning to anonymous online wrongdoers: MKR v Cloudflare Ltd and others

The recent King’s Bench decision in MKR v Cloudflare Ltd and others [2026] illustrates how the court can offer a remedy to those wishing to ‘uncloak’ an anonymous online user, for the purpose of vindicating a victim of untrue, harmful online content.

The applicant in the case applied for Norwich Pharmacal relief, which allows the applicant to obtain disclosure from a third party who has become involved in some form of wrongdoing, even if that was innocently done, so that the applicant can identify the wrongdoer and pursue them via legal proceedings where they would otherwise have remained anonymous.

In a world of ever-changing technological advancements, including social media and AI, this relief can be particularly strategic when applied in defamation, harassment or intellectual property infringement matters.

There are various methods to uncover an account holder, subscriber or domain registrar if defamatory material has been published in the public domain, and Norwich Pharmacal relief can be key to undertaking such steps.

What tests do you need to satisfy to make a Norwich Pharmacal application?

The court will generally need to be satisfied of three conditions, together with considering the necessity and proportionality of the request:

• Mixed up in the conduct: the respondent to the application must be mixed up in the alleged wrongdoing. Even innocent involvement is sufficient to satisfy this element. The applicant must show a good arguable case that the wrongdoing has occurred but doesn’t need to prove liability for the alleged wrongdoing
• Possession condition: the respondent must have, or be likely to have, information that will enable the wrongdoer to be identified
• Justice condition: it must be just in all the circumstances to make the order. Relief is discretionary.

Key takeaways

If you have been the subject of defamatory statements in a public forum, or could benefit from the relief sought in MKR v Cloudflare Ltd and others, here are three key takeaways:

1. Silence is not a shield

If an individual or intermediary is refusing to engage where they may possess key information, they may find themselves subject to a Norwich Pharmacal application. Further, that intermediary may also find themselves subject to a costs order for that same application if the court deems their failure to engage unreasonable.

2. Anonymity v vindication

If the anonymous party feels they have a right or interest in remaining anonymous, the court may well find that this is outweighed by the applicant’s right to vindication and their right to seek redress.

It’s important to seek specialist legal advice from the outset to identify a strategy and ensure pre-action correspondence is compliant. This not only ensures the right process is followed but also avoids the unfortunate circumstance of inadvertently making the application against the incorrect intermediary, which will inflate costs and waste court time and resources.

3. Preservation of key information

It’s key that all important information and documentation, including WhatsApp messages, emails and domain records, are preserved. Not only are parties to potential litigation under a disclosure obligation, but this information will also be key to supporting your application and satisfying the tests set out above.

The anonymous user: heed the MKR v Cloudflare Ltd and others warning

The judgment in MKR v Cloudflare Ltd and others is a reminder that Norwich Pharmacal applications remain a flexible and practical route for victims of anonymous online content to obtain key information which will assist in seeking remedies.

It’s also a stark reminder that anonymity will not stand in the way of a well-prepared application and victims seeking justice.