Director Dominic Holden discusses the UK government’s proposals for a ransomware ban in Law 360.
Dominic’s article was published in Law 360, 22 May 2025, and can be found here.
Ransomware ban move could push hackers to private sector
The government’s bid to crack down on ransomware payments could heap pressure on companies in crisis without any guarantee that it will pull the plug on the billion-pound cybercrime industry, lawyers say.
Proposals by the Home Office to ban public entities from making ransom payments and to require other bodies to consult with the authorities before they consider sending money to their attackers are intended to undermine the ransomware business model by making the U.K. a less profitable target.
But lawyers warn that the proposals, set out in a wide-ranging government consultation, appear to underestimate the opponents.
“Deceptively simple and undoubtedly well-intentioned, the proposal borders on the naive,” Julian Hayes, a partner at BCL Solicitors LLP said. “Even if it worked, it would simply drive ransomware attackers to softer targets.”
Ransomware pulled in more than £1 billion ($1.3 billion) from victims worldwide in 2023, according to the Home Office. It has become a lucrative source of cash for cybercriminals and state-sponsored actors able to infiltrate businesses and government agencies and take control of their networks and data.
Law enforcement agencies and the government see it as the biggest cyber risk facing businesses in Britain. But it is also perceived as a direct threat to national security because of the ability of criminals to shut down hospitals, energy suppliers and grocery chains.
The National Cyber Security Centre helped to manage 317 ransomware incidents in the 12 months to August 2024. They included 13 separate attacks deemed to be “nationally significant” that “posed serious harm to essential services or the wider economy.”
They include Russian hackers who stole private medical data in June 2024 in a ransomware attack on a medical testing company, Synnovis Services LLP, that disrupted London hospitals. And hackers demanded £600,000 from the British Library to prevent publication of stolen files, a demand it refused to pay, in October 2023.
What to do about the problem divides opinion. Some experts say that paying the ransom puts money in the pockets of organized crime, terrorists and sanctioned individuals — with no guarantee that the stolen data will be returned or services resumed. Paying helps to create a business model, encouraging more attacks.
Many organizations targeted do not pay. Most victims interviewed by the National Crime Agency said they did not want to reward their attackers.
But principles come at a cost.
Marks & Spencer the grocery and clothing chain, continues to lose money following a recent ransomware attack that has disrupted service and will cost it an estimated £300 million. And the Legal Aid Agency, which revealed in May that data dating back to 2010 had been stolen, warned anyone who had applied for legal support in criminal cases that they face the risk of being scammed.
But some companies see no other option. LockBit hackers hit Allen & Overy with a ransomware attack in 2023, but later retracted its threat to release the stolen data. Cyber-experts have interpreted this as a sign that A&O paid out to avoid sensitive client information from being released, although the firm never publicly commented.
Against this backdrop, the Home Office said in March that it was consulting on a range of proposals. They include a limited ban on publicly owned bodies and operators of critical national infrastructure making payments, mandatory reporting of all ransomware attacks by companies that meet thresholds and even approval by the government before they make any payment.
But lawyers warn that the proposals are risky. Payments are already widely viewed as the last resort, a drastic step for companies to take only when backup files restoring their operations fail or there is a risk that the stolen data is not encrypted.
James Longster, a partner in the technology and commercial transactions practice at Travers Smith LLP, said that private sector clients, particularly financial services firms, are concerned that putting restrictions on public-sector targets will simply push criminals to intensify their attacks on them.
“There isn’t a magic answer,” Longster said. “People want to do something because it’s a problem. It’s hard to work out exactly what that is.”
There was also doubt among observers about how the proposals would work in practice. When would companies, trying to get to grips with resuming service, be required to notify the government of the attack? How would a ban, if it was extended to the private sector, affect global companies in countries where there was no bar to payment?
The government has already introduced compulsory reporting of cyberattacks in the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, which is making its way through Parliament. Victims would be required to report an incident only once. But lawyers say a lack of detail means it is unclear how the proposals would sit alongside existing notification requirements, potentially delaying payment during talks with authorities — and prolonging the disruption.
Business leaders fear the proposals might also lead to expensive red tape when they are already under pressure. Companies already face a race against the clock to disclose cyberattacks to their regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office — and, potentially, to individuals if personal data was stolen.
Longster predicted that the ban on public sector bodies making payments might not make it into legislation if there was resistance during the consultation. But he said that the reporting obligations to the central government “could meaningfully turn the dial” by equipping law enforcement agencies with the best information possible.
Another proposal would require businesses to gain government clearance to ensure that money would not go to sanctioned individuals or terrorists. Christopher Whitehouse of Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP said that limited legislation introducing a reporting requirement – but not going as far as an outright ban – would be a good compromise.
“Save for those extreme cases, if there’s something companies could do to survive, but aren’t allowed, it’s going to be a tough sell,” Whitehouse said.
Britain would become one of few Western governments to introduce the ban – perhaps the only one – if it did so. Many countries have pledged not to pay ransomware, but none have actually made it illegal, even if it involves paying a sanctioned entity.
Some U.S. states have passed legislation banning public authorities from paying ransoms, but experts have warned that the results have been mixed.
Hayes of BCL Solicitors also said that the potential ban on government agencies making payments overlooks the fact that hackers, particularly those backed by hostile governments, are often more interested in causing chaos than making money.
Outlawing ransomware payments “risks making hostages of us all,” Hayes said.
“Such sophisticated threat actors are highly unlikely to surrender without a struggle,” Hayes continued. “Far from being deterred, such groups are more likely to fight tenaciously to protect their lucrative business models, with ‘big game’ ransomware groups intentionally targeting the U.K. essential services on which we all rely, both to break the government’s will and serve as a warning to like-minded countries not to follow suit.”
Some lawyers advocate for a more aggressive policy to help ensure that does not happen.
Dominic Holden of Lawrence Stephens said that hackers would look abroad if it was illegal for public and private sector entities to pay out.
Support for small and midsized businesses in the form of tax breaks or subsidized insurance premiums would also mean that the incentives to target the U.K. would vanish, Holden said.
“If the government is going to do this, I don’t think they should do it in half measures,” Holden said. “If you’re going to eradicate the problem, and disincentivize the hackers so they go overseas in jurisdictions where they can be paid, then grasp the nettle and ban all payments.”
Mark Jones, a partner at Paynes Hicks Beach LLP, said there were also concerns that the mandatory reporting requirement could then trigger regulatory scrutiny. The government would have to assure companies that the information would remain confidential if it wants to win support for legislation, Jones said.
“I would also hope to see measures to support those who are victims of ransomware, rather than simply add to the stress of the situation,” Jones added.
For more information on our cryptoassets expertise, please click here.