What happens when one of the most anticipated entertainment launches in the world is compromised by a major leak? How should a brand respond when confidential content starts circulating online, misinformation makes it harder to distinguish fact from fiction, and those responsible attempt to profit from the chaos? And can staying relatively quiet actually be the smartest crisis communication strategy?

In this episode of What Just Happened?, Kate Hartley and Tamara Littleton examine the leak surrounding the forthcoming Grand Theft Auto release, exploring not only what happened, but also the wider implications for brands dealing with cyber breaches and confidential information.

When clips showing apparent new features in GTA6 began appearing online, shared by an individual or group calling themselves CyberLeak, Take-Two Interactive responded with copyright takedowns and legal action aimed at uncovering those responsible. Genuine leaked footage became mixed with potentially AI-generated material, creating further uncertainty over what was authentic and what could legally be removed.

Kate and Tamara discuss why the restrained response may have worked in its favour, how gaming companies approach communications differently from many other industries, and why public anger appears to have focused on the leakers rather than the company itself.

A full transcript of today’s show is available to read here.

When conventional protest appears powerless, what makes people turn to direct action against organisations? How should leaders respond when anger becomes disruption, criminal damage or violence? And could anxiety about artificial intelligence create the next flashpoint for public protest?

In this episode of What Just Happened?, Kate Hartley and Tamara Littleton are joined by crisis communications expert Rod Cartwright to examine why direct action is rising up risk registers and what organisations can do about it.

The discussion traces direct action from the Luddites, suffragettes and civil rights movement to Occupy, Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil and Palestine Action. It explores how moral mandates and ‘in-group leniency’ shape perceptions of acceptable protest, and why companies can become targets through financing, investments or supply chains even when they are not directly involved in a contentious industry.

The conversation offers practical, timely guidance for organisations facing boycotts or disruptive protests: understand the wider risk environment, stress-test security and communications plans, protect employees, respond firmly to illegality, and show empathy for the concerns driving the action. It also considers whether organisations should speak out on divisive issues – and why any position must be grounded in business, strategy and brand reality.

A full transcript of today’s show is available to read here.

What happens when a company challenges damaging media coverage in court? Can legal action restore commercial confidence, or does it simply revive the allegations and expose them to a much wider audience? And in an age when AI systems continually resurface past controversies, can a brand ever truly move on from a reputational crisis?

In this episode of What Just Happened?, Kate Hartley and Tamara Littleton examine Evri’s reported £1.2 million legal action against the BBC following a Panorama documentary broadcast in December 2025. The programme raised concerns about delivery standards, customer dissatisfaction and working conditions, while Evri’s owners argue that the coverage caused serious financial damage.

We explore whether the case could draw renewed attention to claims that many people may previously have missed, and consider how the dispute could influence the information surfaced by search engines and generative AI, which can preserve associations between brands and controversies long after public attention has moved elsewhere.

We also discuss the potential tension between legal, commercial and communications priorities and whether the outcome could influence Evri’s ability to win major retail contracts. The key question is whether securing a legal victory will outweigh the long-term reputational cost of bringing the original allegations back into public view.

A full transcript of today’s show is available to read here.