Meta has launched another court action targeting the United Kingdom’s media watchdog, Ofcom, in a fresh bid to contest how the Online Safety Act will apply to its flagship platforms. The move, lodged in London earlier this week, centres on the classification of WhatsApp and Instagram, which the regulator wants to place under stricter obligations. Meta’s lawyers argue that Ofcom’s methodology for calculating fees – based on global revenue – is flawed and that the company should not be required to disclose as much data as the regulator demands. The filing follows a series of similar challenges from other tech giants, including TikTok and X, and adds to a growing perception that Silicon Valley is using litigation to slow the rollout of the landmark legislation.
The dispute over classification and fees
The core of Meta’s latest appeal lies in the categorisation of its messaging and photo‑sharing services. Under the Online Safety Act, platforms deemed “high‑risk” must provide greater transparency, enhanced user controls, and more rigorous safeguards against fraudulent advertising and illegal content. Ofcom has moved to re‑classify WhatsApp and Instagram, a decision Meta contends will impose disproportionate burdens. The company’s legal team argues that the regulator’s charge‑calculation model, which ties penalties to a proportion of worldwide revenue, does not reflect the actual risk posed by these services. Moreover, Meta asserts that the data‑collection requirements are overly expansive, potentially exposing user communications to scrutiny far beyond the act’s intended scope.
Broader industry resistance and ongoing litigation
Meta’s action is part of a coordinated industry response. In recent months, TikTok has challenged the extent of information it must hand over to Ofcom, while X (formerly Twitter) has contested similar reporting obligations. A senior director at the regulator, Oliver Griffiths, testified before the House of Lords that Ofcom is “operating in a highly litigious environment”. He highlighted that the body faces at least two judicial reviews from Meta alone, plus actions from “a raft of services” seeking to curb the regulator’s data‑gathering powers. Griffiths warned that while the organisation is committed to driving change, it must navigate a legal minefield where deep‑pocketed firms can delay implementation through protracted court battles.
The tech sector’s pushback has been framed as a defence of due process rather than an opposition to the Act’s aims. A Meta spokesperson said: “Like many others in the industry, including TikTok, Roblox, X and Quora, we are challenging specific aspects of implementation. These are not challenges to the law itself, but how Ofcom has interpreted it. This is a normal feature of any new regulatory regime being bedded in and ensures questions of process, scope and implementation get settled so the law is applied proportionately, accurately and consistently.” The company has also previously contested Ofcom’s fee methodology in a May filing, claiming the charges should not be anchored to global revenue.
Regulator’s response and the legal landscape
Ofcom maintains that its approach is necessary to fund the extensive oversight required under the Online Safety Act. The regulator’s funding model draws on a proportion of qualifying worldwide revenue, with breaches punishable by fines up to 10 % of that figure or £18 million, whichever is higher. This financial framework is designed to ensure that platforms have a tangible incentive to comply, while also covering the operational costs of monitoring and enforcement. Oliver Griffiths emphasised that the regulator’s staff are “all coming to work to make this happen”, but cautioned that unnecessary risks could result in “absolutely clobbered legally by deep‑pocketed individuals and firms”.
The legal challenges have introduced uncertainty for both the regulator and the platforms. Judicial reviews can stall enforcement actions, creating a de facto pause in the implementation timeline. For Ofcom, each setback threatens to erode its authority and potentially weaken the deterrent effect of the Act. For the tech companies, the litigation offers a strategic tool to buy time, renegotiate terms, or secure more favourable interpretations. The outcome of these cases will likely set important precedents for how future digital‑safety legislation is enforced across the European Union and beyond.
Political commitment to tighter internet governance
The government’s stance on digital regulation has grown increasingly assertive. Lisa Nandy, Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, recently vowed to keep introducing legislation to govern the internet. Speaking on the Sky News Electoral Dysfunction podcast, she said: “I think we’re going to have to start getting used to the idea, actually, that government is going to be far quicker, far more interventionist, and I think I’m going to have to see the law updated regularly because tech is changing so fast that we’ve got to be able to respond.” Her comments underscore a broader policy shift toward proactive regulation, reflecting public concern over online harms and the perceived inadequacy of self‑regulation by tech firms.
The political will to tighten controls is not limited to the UK; other jurisdictions are also drafting or enacting similar frameworks. This global momentum suggests that the legal skirmishes currently playing out in British courts are merely the opening rounds of a longer regulatory battle. Companies that can navigate the evolving legal landscape will likely gain a competitive edge, while those that resist may face escalating fines and reputational damage.
Why it Matters
The latest legal skirmish between Meta and Ofcom signals a pivotal moment for Britain’s fledgling digital‑safety regime. If the courts side with the regulator, it could affirm the authority of the Online Safety Act and encourage other platforms to comply promptly, thereby accelerating the delivery of safer online environments for users. Conversely, a victory for Meta might embolden further industry challenges, potentially diluting the Act’s impact and delaying the protective measures it intends to deliver. The outcome will shape not only the UK’s approach to online safety but also provide a template for how democratic societies balance innovation, free expression, and the need to protect citizens in an increasingly digital world.
