7. The newspaper did not accept a breach of the Code. It said it was not in dispute that the complainant had modelled for Playboy; the newspaper said that the number of engagements secured by the complainant was not at issue, the point the columnist was making in referring to “modelling for Playboy, fetish and lingerie shoots”, was that, in her opinion, anyone engaged in the kind of work suggested by that three-part description might not be an appropriate ambassador for a child protection charity. The newspaper provided a number of posts which the complainant had published on social media, which it said confirmed that she does “lingerie and fetish modelling.” The newspaper said that when a person devotes a significant amount of time to and presumably earns a significant income from posing for such photographs and sharing them on social media to promote a public image and personal "brand", it was not inaccurate to refer to this activity as the person's "day job"
Can't understand how Bergdorf could have been advised to challenge any of this. It's all there in black and white.