In 2007, the courts reviewed 33 civil cases concerned with journalists and media means, and of them two cases were in local area. 10 or 38.4 percent of the total cases, MPs and public officials were plaintiffs and 2 or 6 percent were singers. 1 case of 33 cases, reporter was a plaintiff, and other cases, ordinary citizens were plaintiffs.

Classifying the content of information
            - Information on public worrying -3 cases or 9.1 percent
            - Information accusing wrong-doings of public organizations -9 cases or 27.3 percent
            - Information affecting person lives -21 cases 63.6 percent
Consideration of case reviewing:
            - Prestige restored-23 or 69.7 percent
            - Dismissed -3 or 9.1 percent
            - Established an agreement on reconciliation-4 or 12.1 percent
            - Plaintiffs refused its claims -3 or 9.1 percent
Two cases reviewed by court in local area were dismissed at the initiative of plaintiffs who refused their claims. It means the media won these two cases. One of these two reporters, who won, was arrested for 7-day period for writing stories. But he was released in 5 days as a result of advocacy procedure.

Maximum amount of money demanded by plaintiffs was MNT 100 million. Maximum amount of money paid according to a decision of the court was MNT 5 million. Of total 33 cases, 9 or 27.3 percent made no money demand. 9 of total 33 cases reviewed by the court complained appeals. Of these 9 appeals, 4 was reviewed with a decision to decrease the amount of money to be paid, and 4 was considered as dismissing it saying it has not satisfied the requirement . The remained 1 case was reviewed with a decision of changing it into a reconciliation contract.

In conclusion, the media won 3 or 9.1 percent of total cases, and in 69.7 percent of the cases they lost. For the remained part, plaintiffs and medial reconciled.

Cases accusing politicians and higher position public officials were reviewed 100 percent of their side. It is connected with a law clause that stipulates respondent or journalist shall be responsible for proving its distribution of fair and correct information.