Steele Dossier Lawsuit, Trump Ordered to Pay $820K After Failed Data Protection Claims and What It Means for Political Defamation Cases
As of February 2026, President Donald Trump has been ordered to pay over $820,000 in legal fees to Orbis Business Intelligence following his unsuccessful lawsuit against former British spy Christopher Steele over the controversial 2016 dossier. Trump filed the data protection lawsuit in October 2022, claiming Orbis violated British data protection laws by compiling allegations about his ties to Russia and sexual conduct. London Judge Karen Steyn dismissed the case in February 2024, finding “no compelling reasons” to allow it to proceed to trial, and subsequent rulings in 2024 and April 2025 ordered Trump to pay escalating legal fees after he failed to make initial payments.
What the Steele Dossier Lawsuit Involved and Who Filed It
The Steele dossier lawsuit refers to a data protection claim Donald Trump filed against Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd. in October 2022. Orbis is a private intelligence firm co-founded by Christopher Steele, a former MI6 officer who ran Britain’s Russia desk before retiring in 2009. Trump sued Orbis—not Steele personally—alleging the company violated British data protection laws when it compiled a 35-page dossier in 2016 containing unverified allegations about Trump’s conduct and connections to Russia.
The dossier was compiled between June and December 2016 and was commissioned by Fusion GPS, a research firm hired by attorney Marc Elias on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. BuzzFeed published the dossier without permission on January 10, 2017, sparking intense political controversy. Trump’s lawsuit claimed he “suffered personal and reputational damage and distress” from allegations in the dossier about sexual conduct in Russia and bribes to Russian officials.
Trump’s legal team initially filed claims under two UK data protection laws passed in 2018, then amended the complaint in February 2023 to sue only Orbis under a 1998 data protection law. The lawsuit sought unspecified damages for reputational harm and emotional distress.
February 2024 UK Court Dismissal and Legal Grounds
On February 1, 2024, High Court Judge Karen Steyn dismissed Trump’s lawsuit against Orbis Business Intelligence, ruling the case was “bound to fail” and had “no compelling reasons to allow the claim to proceed to trial.” The dismissal came on multiple procedural grounds that effectively killed Trump’s case before it could reach trial.
Judge Steyn found Trump’s lawsuit contained no valid claims under the 2018 UK data protection laws because those laws “came into force” well after the dossier was completed in 2016. The court also ruled the six-year statute of limitations for claims under the 1998 data protection law had expired by the time Trump’s lawyer Hugh Tomlinson added that claim to the amended complaint in February 2023. Orbis successfully argued that neither the company nor Steele approved or were aware of BuzzFeed’s publication of the dossier, and therefore should not be held liable for its dissemination.
Trump explicitly accepted in his legal filings that “the Defendant is not responsible in law for the publication of the Memoranda by BuzzFeed,” which significantly weakened his ability to prove Orbis caused him harm through the dossier’s public release.
April 2025 Legal Fees Ruling and Payment Disputes
On April 3, 2025, London Judge Jason Rowley ordered Trump to pay £626,000 (approximately $820,000) in total legal fees to Orbis Business Intelligence for defending against his failed lawsuit. This ruling came after Trump failed to pay an initial fee assessment of £290,000 ($360,000) that had been ordered in March 2024.
Orbis had originally sought £634,000 ($809,000) in legal costs, but Judge Steyn reduced this amount by more than 50% in March 2024. Trump was ordered to pay £300,000 (approximately $382,000) initially. When Trump failed to make this payment, Orbis returned to court in January 2025 seeking enforcement.
At a January 2025 hearing, Judge Jason Rowley ruled Trump must pay the outstanding £290,000 within 28 days or be barred from addressing the court at the April 2025 hearing. Trump failed to make this payment, which meant he was prohibited from being represented at the April hearing. Without Trump’s lawyers present to contest the fees, Judge Rowley assessed the final costs at £626,000.
As of February 2026, court records do not indicate whether Trump has paid the full £626,000 judgment.
What You Must Know About Data Protection Claims vs. Defamation Law
Why Trump’s Data Protection Approach Failed
Trump’s UK lawsuit was filed as a data protection claim, not a defamation case, which created significant legal obstacles. Under UK data protection laws, plaintiffs must prove a defendant unlawfully processed their personal data, violated specific privacy regulations, and caused quantifiable harm. Defamation law, by contrast, focuses on false statements that damage reputation.
Trump’s legal team chose data protection law likely because defamation lawsuits like h3h3 face high burdens when the plaintiff is a public figure. Under the landmark US Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), public figures must prove “actual malice”—that the defendant knew statements were false or showed reckless disregard for the truth.
The data protection approach failed because Trump could not establish that Orbis was responsible for publishing the dossier. BuzzFeed published it without Orbis’s permission or knowledge, breaking the chain of causation between Orbis’s data processing and Trump’s alleged harm. Additionally, the statute of limitations issues proved fatal—Trump filed his claim years after the dossier’s creation, well beyond the timeframes allowed under applicable UK data protection statutes.
Trump’s Other Failed Steele Dossier Lawsuit in US Courts
The UK lawsuit was not Trump’s only legal action related to the Steele dossier. On March 24, 2022, Trump filed a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) lawsuit in US District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Hillary Clinton, Christopher Steele, Fusion GPS, and dozens of other defendants.
On September 8, 2022, US District Judge Donald Middlebrooks dismissed the entire case, ordering Trump to pay approximately $1 million in sanctions to the defendants “because the case should never have been brought to begin with.” In February 2024, Trump filed an appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to overturn the sanctions. As of February 2026, this appeal remains pending.
What to Do Next If You’re Following This Case
Where to Find Official Court Documents
For readers interested in following the Steele dossier litigation, official court records provide the most reliable information. The UK lawsuit Trump filed is Case No. KB-2022-004403 in the High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division. Court filings can be accessed through the UK Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website at judiciary.uk.
For US cases, Trump’s dismissed RICO lawsuit is Case No. 2:2022cv14102 in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Court documents are available through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at pacer.uscourts.gov.
When Legal Advice May Help
While this article provides legal information, individuals facing defamation claims like stefon-diggs or considering litigation should consult qualified attorneys. If you are mentioned in published allegations you believe are false, consult a defamation attorney about potential claims. Time limits for filing defamation suits vary by jurisdiction—typically one to three years from publication—so prompt consultation is critical.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Steele dossier?
The Steele dossier is a 35-page collection of intelligence memos compiled by former British MI6 officer Christopher Steele between June and December 2016. The dossier contained unverified allegations about Donald Trump’s connections to Russia, financial dealings, and personal conduct. BuzzFeed published the dossier on January 10, 2017, without Steele’s permission, sparking intense political controversy.
What is the current status of Trump’s lawsuit as of February 2026?
As of February 2026, Trump’s UK data protection lawsuit against Orbis Business Intelligence has been fully dismissed, and Trump has been ordered to pay £626,000 (approximately $820,000) in legal fees to Orbis. Court records do not indicate whether Trump has paid this judgment. Trump’s US RICO lawsuit was dismissed in September 2022, and his appeal of the $1 million sanctions remains pending.
Can Trump appeal the UK court’s dismissal?
Trump could potentially appeal the UK court’s February 2024 dismissal and April 2025 legal fees ruling to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. However, as of February 2026, no appeal has been filed. UK appellate courts are unlikely to overturn dismissals based on procedural grounds such as statute of limitations violations.
What damages was Trump seeking?
In his UK lawsuit, Trump sought unspecified damages for reputational harm, personal distress, and violations of his data protection rights under British law. Trump’s complaint alleged the dossier caused him to suffer “personal and reputational damage and distress” but did not specify a dollar amount for damages.
Disclaimer: This article provides legal information about the Steele dossier lawsuit but does not constitute legal advice for any specific situation.
Next Steps: If you’re involved in defamation litigation or similar matters, consult a qualified attorney familiar with defamation law and data protection regulations in your jurisdiction.
Stay informed, stay protected. — AllAboutLawyer.com
Last Updated: February 2, 2026
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah