Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Sharenet v MyBroadband Online

, ,

Ruling: Acting Press Ombud

Complaint:  PCSA 000537

Author: Jan Vermeulen, the editor

Headline: Sharenet explains changes in Blu Label shareholding

Publication date of first article: 6 January 2026

Publication date of updated story: 7 January 2026

Date lodged: 26 January 2026

Link to story: https://www.google.com/search?q=Sharenet+explains+changes+in+Blu+Label+shareholding&oq=Sharenet+explains+changes+in+Blu+Label+shareholding&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQRRg80gEINjc0NmowajSoAgGwAgHxBR5TvsO9o6DD8QUeU77DvaOgww&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Particulars

  1. This finding is based on a written complaint by Hanekom Attorneys, on behalf of Sharenet (Pty) Ltd, a written response by MyBroadband editor Jan Vermeulen, and a written reply by Hanekom Attorneys.
  2. Sharenet asked MyBroadband to remove the article, which the editor refused to do.
  3. The editor then published an updated article – indicating that certain amendments had been made to include additional information provided by Sharenet. In his view, those steps were sufficient to address any concerns.
  4. However, Sharenet was still dissatisfied and lodged a complaint with the Press Council.

Provision

  1. The original article is not available to me for adjudication. While I do understand Sharenet’s concern that that article has caused it unnecessary harm and that it should be adjudicated, it is unfair and unrealistic to expect this office to pass judgment on a document that we are unable to peruse.
  2. Therefore, the updated story is the only subject of this adjudication.

The updated article

  1. SharenetCEO Giuseppe Lorusso has denied allegations that the firm promoted Blu Label Unlimited while quietly selling a major stake, defending the actions of portfolio manager Dylan Bradfield, who has supported the stock since 2022. Despite claims that the Local Alpha Plus portfolio cut its holding by 63% in Q3 2025, Sharenet maintains a high-conviction, bullish stance on Blue Label’s long-term value, driven by the anticipated Cell C restructuring and IPO (this summary was AI-generated).
  2. At the bottom of the article, under the headline Article amendment, it inter alia says that new information “dismissed concerns of any improper, unethical, or manipulative trading activity by Sharenet, its directors, portfolio managers, or clients. It also shows that no independent evidence exists to support the social media allegation by CJPraat.”
  3. It was also reported that no regulatory authority has made any adverse finding against Sharenet in this regard.

The complaint

  1. Sharenet’s complaint is basically about the original article. The issue is that a reasonable reader would understand that article to be stating, as a fact, that its conduct has caused or materially contributed to certain market outcomes – “an impression which is not only untrue but materially misleading”.
  2. The nub of the complaint about the second article is that the revised one does not rectify the harm caused by the original publication.
  3. The company says the updated narrative “remains structured around unverified allegations originally sourced from online commentary and social media, which had already been disseminated widely and without verification” before it was afforded any opportunity to respond.

MyBroadband responds

  1. The website mainly deals with the first article in its response.
  2. Vermeulen explains, though, that Lorusso sent him an email on January 7 that contained information which countered the claims made by CJPraat. “However, Mr Lorusso stated we were prohibited from using this information to update the article, as it was ‘confidential’.”
  3. The editor says he asked for permission to publish it, which was denied.
  4. Shortly after this, the CEO published this same feedback and parts of the “confidential” information on X. “I used this now-public information to update the article on 7 January. Sharenet was also offered another opportunity to provide additional feedback on the article before it was updated,” the editor says.

Sharenet replies to the response

  1. Sharenet also mainly concentrates in its rejoinder on the first article. It adds, though, that it furnished MyBroadband with detailed, objective records which directly contradict the allegations contained in the article – but the publication refused to utilise this information.
  2. This underscores the fact that Sharenet was denied a proper opportunity to meaningfully participate in the reporting process, it adds.

Analysis

  1. Let me repeat that I have disregarded all correspondence with regards to the original article, as that text is not at my disposal.
  2. From documents provided to me by MyBroadband, the following relevant correspondence between Lorusso and Vermeulen (all on January 7, after the publication of the original article) reads as follows:
  3. Lorusso: “The attached documents and information are provided to you strictly in confidence for the sole purpose of enabling you (to) apologize, retract and correct your false allegations in your published article. Any publishing, sharing, dissemination, distribution, or disclosure of this confidential information to any third party without our prior express written consent will result in immediate and aggressive legal action against you in your personal capacity.”
  4. Vermeulen: “I will gladly amend the article with the correct information. In order to do so, I must be permitted to use the information provided in your letter. Note, I will not publish the source document you provided (by) … merely your remarks and that you showed me records pulled from your systems as evidence.”
  5. Lorusso: “We do not grant permission for you to use any information from our previous correspondence or attachments in any amended article. Any such use without explicit consent will be treated as a further breach, leading to additional legal claims… The article must be withdrawn in full and a public apology provided. It is not acceptable that the article is merely amended, as the damage has already been inflicted.”
  6. After a post on X by Lorusso, Vermeulen amended the original article as the information was then in the public domain. By doing so, the editor adhered to Section 1.9 of the Press Code which says that a report should be supplemented “once new information becomes available”. The editor needs to be commended for doing that.
  7. He also gave Sharenet a right of reply, as directed by Section 1.8 of the Code. Kudos, again.
  8. The central issue is the question whether the revised article has rectified the (possible) harm that the original one could have caused.
  9. Of course, such (possible) harm cannot be undone. The question is how to rectify the matter.
  10. I believe MyBroadband did the best it could, for these reasons:
    1. The updated article extensively reports Sharenet’s explanation of the matter and its denial of the allegations;
    2. It clearly states that new information that came to light has “dismissed concerns of any improper, unethical, or manipulative trading activity by Sharenet, its directors, portfolio managers, or clients”;
    3. This is an implicit acknowledgment that the original article was faulty – and an honest attempt to rectify the matter; and
    4. Sharenet itself does not complain about the text of the updated story.
  11. Based on these considerations, I have no reason to uphold the complaint.

Finding

  1. The complaint is dismissed.

Appeals procedure

The Complaints Procedure stipulates that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at khanyim@presscouncilsa.org.za

Johan Retief

Acting Press Ombud

11 April 2026

 

Related Posts