The Supreme Court’s decision stated that the coverage in the episode was considered to have contributed to an important social discussion and that it was considered necessary to reconcile views on the right to B’s privacy and freedom of expression in the interests of the media to deviate from the provisions of Act No. 77/2000 in the resolution of the case. As personal information about B in the episode was considered to have been processed solely in the interests of the press in the sense of Article 5 of the Act, its provisions, including the consent and withdrawal of it would not be applied, without prejudice to the ending of the second sentence of that article. The court also concluded that A was considered, in light of the freedom of expression he enjoyed as a media journalist, to have not violated B’s privacy in such a way that the obligation to pay misdemeanor damages was created on the basis of Article 26 of the Icelandic Civil Litigation Act no. 50/1993. A was acquitted of all claims made by B in the case.