US court upholds Ofcom Online Safety Act enforcement against international platforms

This ruling solidifies the ability of international regulators to impose domestic safety standards on US-based platforms with significant local user bases. By affirming that regulatory fines and investigations are sovereign acts, the court has limited the ability of tech companies to use US constitutional protections to bypass foreign digital safety mandates. For the streaming and social media ecosystem, this sets a precedent that 'infrastructure-free' operations do not grant immunity from local compliance. Industry strategists should monitor whether this encourages other global regulators to aggressively pursue information notices against platforms lacking a physical presence. Watch for 4chan to potentially appeal this jurisdictional dismissal to the DC Circuit Court.

Ofcom has been steadily expanding its enforcement posture under the Online Safety Act since the law's provisions came into force. In early 2025, Ofcom issued its first set of illegal content duties requiring platforms to conduct risk assessments and implement safety measures, with deadlines that applied to any service accessible from the UK regardless of where it was incorporated. The regulator has publicly stated it will pursue fines of up to 10% of global qualifying revenue or £18 million, whichever is higher, against non-compliant services. This aggressive extraterritorial stance is what prompted 4chan and Kiwi Farms to challenge Ofcom's jurisdiction in US federal court, and the court's dismissal now validates that approach.

The ruling arrives amid a broader wave of international regulatory actions targeting US-based platforms. In the EU, the European Commission opened formal proceedings against X (formerly Twitter) under the Digital Services Act in December 2023, alleging failures in content moderation and transparency, with potential fines reaching 6% of global annual turnover. Australia's eSafety Commissioner has similarly issued compliance notices to multiple platforms including Telegram and Reddit for failing to adequately address child sexual abuse material. These parallel enforcement actions suggest that the US court's sovereign immunity reasoning could embolden other national regulators to pursue platforms that lack local physical infrastructure, knowing that US courts are unlikely to serve as a shield.

For streaming and video platforms specifically, the compliance implications extend beyond social media. Ofcom's illegal content duties apply to any user-to-user service or search service with UK users, which includes video-sharing platforms that host user-generated content. The regulator's guidance distinguishes between services that merely host content and those that actively recommend or amplify it, with stricter duties falling on the latter category. Platforms like Twitch, Discord, and even smaller video-sharing services with meaningful UK audiences now face a clearer legal reality: the absence of a UK office does not insulate them from Ofcom's information-gathering powers or its penalty regime. Legal experts have noted that the sovereign immunity doctrine applied here mirrors how US courts have historically treated foreign regulatory actions, making an appeal to the DC Circuit an uphill battle for the plaintiffs.