From Judge Rudolph Contreras (D.D.C.) last week in 4chan Community Support LLC v. UK Office of Communications a/k/a Ofcom:
This case spawned from a series of interactions between Plaintiffs, two American internet companies, and Ofcom. Plaintiff 4chan "runs an Internet imageboard website" that it describes as "controversial," while Lolcow administers a website called Kiwi Farms that operates as a "discussion forum that focuses on Internet culture" and is also self-described as "controversial." According to the Complaint, neither 4chan nor Lolcow has any "presence, operations, or infrastructure outside the territorial limits of the United States." …
Although the Court does not undertake to describe all of Ofcom's regulatory powers, two are particularly relevant here. First, the Online Safety Act gave Ofcom investigatory powers. Ofcom may issue "information notices," which require recipients to give Ofcom "any information that they require for the purpose of exercising, or deciding whether to exercise, any of their online safety functions." Ofcom may also "open an investigation into whether a provider of a regulated service has failed, or is failing, to comply with" certain requirements under the act, and "the provider must co-operate fully with the investigation." These investigative powers are backed by the force of law. "A person commits an offence if the person fails to comply with a requirement of an information notice." If a person is convicted of such an offense, they may be fined.
Second, the Online Safety Act equips Ofcom with two enforcement tools: (1) provisional notices of contravention and (2) confirmation decisions. Provisional notices of contravention put a provider on notice that, in Ofcom's view, "there are reasonable grounds for believing that the provider has failed, or is failing, to comply with any enforceable requirement … that applies in relation to the service." Enforceable requirements encompass a host of duties set forth in the statute—including illegal content, children's online safety, and record-keeping requirements….
The parties give slightly different accounts of their interactions. Starting with its interactions with 4chan, Ofcom tells that it initially made a determination that 4chan was subject to the Online Safety Act because the website represented that it had "over 20 million unique visitors per month and that over 7% of 4chan's user base [was] UK users." Moreover, the website "markets [its] platform to advertisers on the basis" of that 7% of British users, "the second largest percentage behind the United States."
The Parties agree that on April 14, 2025, Ofcom sent 4chan an "information notice"—though Ofcom claims that it made previous outreach attempts as well. According to Ofcom, the information notice sought "a written record of the illegal content risk assessment that 4chan was required to prepare under the Act." Plaintiffs allege that the notice warned that "'failure to comply' with it 'may also constitute a criminal offense'" and "may result in a fine of £18 million or 10% of 4chan's worldwide turnover, arrest, and/or 'imprisonment for a term of up to two years, or a fine (or both).'" …
Whatever the exact chain of events, the parties agree that on August 12, 2025, Ofcom sent 4chan a "Provisional Decision"—or, as Ofcom characterizes it, a "provisional notice of contravention"—stating that 4chan had violated its obligations under Section 102(8) of the Online Safety Act. The notice "threatened to impose a fine of £20,000 … as well as daily fines of £100 … for up to a maximum of sixty days." This too, Plaintiffs allege, was not properly served. According to Ofcom, 4chan responded to the notice by invoking the First Amendment, claiming improper service, and raising other objections.
