The public conversation around David Walliams has intensified following a detailed joint investigation by The Guardian and ITV News. The reports set out a series of allegations that stretch over more than two decades and focus on claims that he used fame and professional influence to pursue teenage girls and young women. Walliams strongly denies any criminal wrongdoing or abuse of power. No court has determined the truth of these claims, and the reporting has been presented as allegations rather than established facts.
The investigation became public after a High Court bid to prevent publication was refused. Since then, many people have been trying to make sense of what has been alleged, how these stories came to light, and what responses have been given by those involved. The aim here is to explain the key points in clear, straightforward terms, so you can understand what has been reported and what remains in dispute.
How the reporting unfolded
The Guardian and ITV News say their joint investigation lasted around three years. According to their accounts, more than 100 people were approached, and over 30 of those were described as having first-hand knowledge of the alleged conduct. Others interviewed included friends, colleagues, and people connected to Walliams through work in television, publishing, and entertainment.
The reporters say the allegations they gathered share common themes. They concern the use of celebrity status and professional standing to initiate or encourage contact with younger women, in some cases when they were still teenagers, and to pursue sexual relationships later on. Some women described feeling distressed by their experiences at the time or in the years that followed. Some chose to remain anonymous, which is common in sensitive reporting of this nature. While the scope of the investigation is large, it is important to remember that these are claims that Walliams disputes.
Accounts from two women who say they met him at 15
Two of the most serious narratives reported involve women who say they first met Walliams at the age of 15 and later felt their interactions with him amounted to grooming. Both women are now in their 30s, and both told investigators that what happened stayed with them long after their initial encounters.
One woman, identified publicly as Jade, says she met Walliams in August 2007 when she was 15 and he was 36. She alleges that he invited her to his home and that what happened there amounted to sexual assault and grooming. She described the episode as wrong in every respect and said it had a lasting impact on her life and wellbeing.
Another woman, identified as Alex, also says she first met Walliams as a teenager. She alleges that by the time she was 17, she was having sex with him. Looking back, she told reporters that she believes she was groomed, and she expressed certainty in that view. In response, Walliams told the publications that he believed she was 18 at the time. Through his lawyers, he rejected the suggestion of grooming and said the allegation was false and deeply distressing to him.
These accounts are part of the broader set of claims The Guardian and ITV News examined. Walliams has denied any wrongdoing in all of the matters reported.
A teenager who shared her writing and stayed in touch
Another account describes a 15-year-old fan who met Walliams at a Little Britain event in 2004. Identified as Alex in ITV News reporting, she says she gave him scripts she had written along with a letter containing her contact details. According to her, he later got in touch, confirmed her age, and discussed work experience. She says he encouraged her to keep sending scripts and remained in contact for an extended period by email and phone.
She recalls long conversations and the impression that opportunities in entertainment might be possible with his help. When the tone of their exchanges seemed to shift, she says she felt confused but reluctant to sever the connection because she hoped it could lead somewhere professionally. Her later allegation is that by 17 she was having sex with him. Walliams has maintained that he believed she was 18 at the time, and his lawyers have said it is wrong to characterize the situation as grooming.
An aspiring model’s account
ITV News also reported a separate story from 2003 involving an 18-year-old named Lilly Creightmore. She says she felt targeted during a vulnerable period of her life and that the attention she received served his sexual interests rather than her wellbeing. She described her experience as grooming over a period of years.
Walliams has rejected her portrayal of events. He has said he did not single her out because she was young or vulnerable and described what happened between them as a special friendship. He denied that offers of help or gifts were intended to manipulate her or put pressure on her to have sex. This account is one of several in ITV’s timeline that reaches back to the earlier stages of his public career.
Claims connected to Britain’s Got Talent
Some allegations focus on the period when Walliams served as a judge on Britain’s Got Talent. The investigation includes accounts from individuals who say he used his role on the programme to pursue younger women. These claims sit alongside broader concerns about his behavior in professional environments, where his public profile might have created an uneven balance of power.
Walliams was a judge on the show for ten years, stepping down in 2022 after separate recordings from 2020 emerged. Those off-camera recordings captured insulting and sexually explicit remarks about contestants made during breaks in filming. He apologized at the time, expressing regret for disrespectful comments and specifically apologizing to those he had spoken about in derogatory terms.
Following the leak of those recordings, he later brought legal action against the production company, Fremantle, over the recording and retention of private conversations. Fremantle apologized and reached a settlement with him. According to the company, no complaints about his behavior were filed with the production team, broadcaster, or regulator during his decade on the show or in the four years afterward. They encouraged anyone with concerns to come forward. Syco Entertainment, which created the show, said it had no knowledge of the new allegations and had not previously been made aware of them. ITV, the broadcaster, stated that Fremantle is responsible for the day-to-day production, including compliance and duty of care.
Allegations related to his former publisher
Several claims concern Walliams’ time working with his former publisher, HarperCollins. The investigation includes allegations about his conduct toward younger female employees and a junior staff member with whom he is alleged to have had a sexual relationship. In December 2025, HarperCollins ended its relationship with Walliams, saying it did so following an internal investigation into inappropriate behavior toward young women.
Walliams’ spokesperson said at the time that he had not been informed of any allegations by HarperCollins, had not taken part in any investigation, and had not been given an opportunity to respond to questions. He strongly denied behaving inappropriately and said he was taking legal advice. In September 2026, HarperCollins confirmed it would not publish new titles by him and that it would phase out his back catalogue, including remaining physical stock and digital editions. The publisher said employee wellbeing is a priority and that it has established procedures for reporting and examining concerns. It declined to comment on internal matters beyond that general statement.
The High Court challenge to stop publication
Before the investigation was published, Walliams brought legal action against Guardian News and Media and Independent Television News to try to prevent the material from being made public. During those proceedings, he was initially referred to anonymously as PPT. His legal team argued that publication could put him at severe personal risk. The court heard that after journalists approached him with questions about the allegations, he made two suicide attempts and was later detained under the Mental Health Act. The case highlighted the gravity of the situation for him and the concerns about his mental health.
His barrister argued for a permanent injunction, emphasizing the potential impact not only on Walliams but also on his family, including his teenage son. The media organizations opposed the injunction, stating that the issues covered were of significant public interest and that blocking publication would prevent the women from sharing their accounts.
Mr Justice Nicklin declined to grant the permanent injunction. He recognized the seriousness of the risks to Walliams and noted that steps were being taken to safeguard him, including inpatient psychiatric care. However, he found that the public interest in allowing publication outweighed the arguments for stopping the reports from appearing. Walliams was given the option to appeal the decision, but his lawyers later confirmed he would not pursue an appeal. Publication then proceeded, and his identity in relation to the case became public.
It is important to stress what the judge did and did not decide. The hearing was about whether the investigation could be published, not whether the allegations were true. The court did not make findings about the accuracy of the claims.
Walliams’ response in his own words
Throughout, Walliams has firmly denied being a sexual predator and has rejected the idea that he used his fame to exploit or abuse others. In a written response to The Guardian and ITV News, he reflected on his past relationships. He said that some of his behavior in casual relationships may have been thoughtless and that he did not always consider people’s feelings as carefully as he should have. He expressed regret for that.
He went on to say that while a power imbalance can exist when one person is well-known, abusing that power is a different matter, and he insisted he never did so. He also stated that he has not broken the law and that he is devastated that some women from long ago now feel hurt or angry. His team has specifically disputed the claim that he groomed Alex, maintaining that he believed she was 18 at the time of their sexual relationship.
What has and hasn’t been determined
Understanding the difference between allegations and proven facts is essential here. The stories published by The Guardian and ITV News represent accounts gathered through a lengthy process of interviews and document review. They are serious and specific, and they have prompted questions about conduct, influence, and responsibility in public life. At the same time, the High Court has not made findings about the truth or falsity of these claims, and Walliams disputes them. No criminal conviction has been reported as a result of these allegations, and the legal case discussed above concerned publication rather than guilt or innocence.
For many readers, this can feel like unfamiliar territory, particularly when the public figure involved is someone known for family entertainment, children’s books, and prime-time television. The coexistence of detailed allegations and simultaneous denials requires careful reading and patience while more information, if any, becomes available. Being clear about what is alleged and what is denied helps avoid jumping to conclusions and respects the rights of all involved.
Why the story resonates
Beyond the specific claims, this situation touches on broader themes that have shaped public discussions in recent years. Many people are paying attention to power imbalances, especially when professional ambition and celebrity influence meet. When a well-known person takes an interest in a much younger or less experienced individual, questions naturally arise about consent, pressure, and the meaning of choice in a relationship where one side appears to hold the keys to opportunity.
The investigation has also prompted institutions to explain their roles. Fremantle, Syco, ITV, and HarperCollins have all issued statements clarifying their positions, responsibilities, and the steps they take regarding complaints. These responses can help the public understand how large organizations view duty of care, safeguarding, and workplace culture. For anyone following the story, it is reasonable to look for clarity not only from the person at the center of the allegations but also from the companies and teams that surround them.
Considering the impact on those involved
Allegations of this nature can be deeply painful and complex for everyone connected to them. The women who have shared their stories say the experiences affected them for years, and some requested anonymity to protect their privacy. The accused, in this case Walliams, has described the reporting period as devastating and has faced serious mental health struggles according to information presented to the court. Families, friends, and colleagues are often drawn into the discussion too, sometimes unwillingly, adding to the strain.
When reading reports like these, it may help to remember that the situation is evolving. New statements can emerge, further context can be added, and different perspectives may come to light. Where there is disagreement about what happened, the fairest approach is a balanced, careful view that holds space for both accountability and due process. This is especially important when the events described go back many years and when memories, documents, and timelines all need close attention.
What to watch for next
In the near term, it is possible that more people will speak, whether in support of the published accounts or in defense of Walliams. Additional institutional responses may appear if anyone chooses to submit formal complaints or if organizations conduct new reviews. Media outlets may follow up with further reporting as they verify details, request documents, and seek comment.
For readers who want to stay informed, the most helpful approach is to pay attention to careful, well-sourced updates. Look for clear distinctions between allegation and fact, for quotes placed in context, and for responses published in full. As always, the presence of an allegation does not itself prove wrongdoing, and a denial does not by itself resolve a concern. The full picture, if it comes, will depend on evidence and process.
Where things stand now
To summarize, the investigation by The Guardian and ITV News sets out claims that David Walliams used celebrity status and professional influence to pursue younger women, including two who say they first met him at 15. Accounts also relate to his time on Britain’s Got Talent and his working relationship with HarperCollins. Walliams has issued strong denials, saying he is not a sexual predator, insisting he never abused power, and acknowledging only that he sometimes acted thoughtlessly in casual relationships—something he says he regrets.
The High Court allowed the news organizations to publish their work but did not rule on the truth of the allegations. The companies connected to Walliams have described their responsibilities and, in some cases, their decisions to change course on professional ties. As of now, these remain allegations, firmly denied, and the public is left to follow developments as they arise.
For many people, especially those who have watched Walliams’ career over the years, this is a difficult and unsettling moment. It may take time for the picture to become clearer. In the meantime, reading carefully, reserving judgment where appropriate, and recognizing the human cost on all sides can help us navigate a complicated and sensitive story with the empathy and understanding it deserves.
