Meta challenges Ofcom over Online Safety Act

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes · Last updated: 20 September 2026

Meta has issued fresh legal notice to Ofcom in a dispute over how the UK’s Online Safety Act is being applied, targeting the regulator’s decision to place WhatsApp and Instagram in a category that carries additional duties. Meta says it is challenging elements of implementation and scope rather than the law itself. The action follows Meta’s May allegation that Ofcom’s methodology for calculating payment obligations is flawed — Meta argued those charges should not be based on a company’s global revenue. Under the Online Safety Act, breaches may attract penalties equivalent to either 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue (QWR) or £18 million, whichever yields the larger amount.

operating in a highly litigious environment

Oliver Griffiths, Ofcom group director for online safety

What Meta is contesting and how it frames the challenge

Meta says its notice targets how Ofcom has interpreted and applied the Online Safety Act, not the statute itself. The company told peers that, like other firms, it is "challenging specific aspects of implementation" and is seeking rulings on process, scope and the interpretation Ofcom uses when applying duties to particular services.

Central to the dispute is Ofcom’s decision to place WhatsApp and Instagram in a category that attracts additional obligations. Those obligations, as described by the regulator and by industry statements, encompass transparency requirements, enhanced user controls, steps to reduce fraudulent advertising and increased recording of illegal content so the regulator can monitor compliance.

Meta also points back to a separate legal step taken in May, when it argued in London that Ofcom’s methodology for calculating charges was flawed because it relied on a company’s global revenue. That May challenge sought to prevent Ofcom using global revenue as the basis for the fee and fine regime attached to the Act.

How the Act’s penalties and Ofcom’s funding interact with litigation

The Online Safety Act provides for civil penalties to enforce compliance: a contravention can incur a fine corresponding to either 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue or £18 million, whichever is higher. Ofcom says it meets some of the operating costs for its online-safety activities from a portion of that revenue, so the regulator’s charging and accounting approach raises financial as well as legal questions.

Those finance-linked mechanics are one reason companies have targeted how Ofcom calculates both fees and penalties. Meta’s May challenge specifically asked a court to rule that charges should not be based on global revenue, a stance that, if accepted, would limit the scale of sums Ofcom can seek to recover and change how the regulator budgets enforcement work.

Ofcom told a House of Lords committee it is "operating in a highly litigious environment", a phrase used by Oliver Griffiths, Ofcom group director for online safety, as peers examined the regulator’s approach. That litigious context — and the costs and delay that follow — is shaping how both regulator and firms approach implementation and data collection for monitoring.

Political backdrop and wider industry action

The legal contests sit alongside political pressure over digital rules. Lisa Nandy, secretary for digital, culture, media and sport, said ministers intend to keep introducing legislation to govern the internet and to update the law regularly because technology changes rapidly. That stance signals continuing regulatory activism even as enforcement is litigated.

US political hostility to the UK regime is also visible in press and comment, with the text noting resistance from US-based tech companies and from Donald Trump’s White House over the fees and fines Ofcom is enforcing. Industry statements underline that several platforms, not just Meta, are raising legal questions about Ofcom’s implementation choices.

The practical outcome of these combined pressures is uncertain. Courts could narrow or clarify aspects of Ofcom’s powers and charging rules, which would shape how and when the regulator collects data and levies charges. Alternatively, protracted litigation could slow enforcement and delay changes the Act intends to deliver for user safety and fraud prevention.

How this could resolve — two scenarios

The bottom line

Meta’s fresh legal notice against Ofcom keeps the Online Safety Act’s enforcement under active judicial scrutiny. The dispute centres on implementation choices — categorising services and a charging methodology that relies on global revenue — rather than a direct attack on the statute. The outcome of the appeal, and companion challenges from TikTok, X, Roblox and Quora, will determine whether Ofcom must change how it budgets and gathers data for enforcement, or whether the regulator’s current approach and funding model will be upheld. Until courts rule, implementation and enforcement timelines are likely to be unsettled.

What to watch

• Watch for a court ruling on Meta’s fresh appeal against Ofcom’s categorisation and implementation decisions; no date has been set.
• Watch for any Ofcom guidance or clarification on its process for placing services in higher‑duty categories; no date has been set.
• Watch for further legal steps from TikTok, X, Roblox or Quora over information requests or implementation rules; no date has been set.