Meta has launched a legal challenge against the UK media regulator, escalating tensions over how global tech firms are policed under Britain’s online safety regime.
The company has filed for judicial review in the High Court against the methodology used by the Office of Communications (Ofcom) to calculate fees and penalties under the Online Safety Act. A hearing has been scheduled for 13 and 14 October.
At the centre of the dispute is Ofcom’s decision to base fines and annual charges on a company’s qualifying worldwide revenue. Meta argues that this approach is excessive, saying regulatory costs and penalties should reflect income generated within the UK rather than global turnover.
Under the Online Safety Act, Ofcom can impose fines of up to 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue or £18 million, whichever is higher. With Meta reporting global revenues of about $201 billion last year, theoretical penalties could reach around $20 billion, far exceeding any previous UK regulatory fine.
The Act also introduced an annual fee regime last September, applying the same global revenue framework to companies providing user-generated content, search services, or adult content to UK users, provided their UK-linked revenue exceeds £250 million.
Meta said the system risks placing a disproportionate burden on a small number of large platforms. A spokesperson said the company believes fees and penalties should be tied to services actually regulated within the UK. It added that such an approach would still allow Ofcom to issue record-level fines if necessary.
In legal filings submitted by barrister Monica Carss-Frisk KC, Meta described Ofcom’s methodology as “troubling”. The documents argue that the framework effectively forces global companies to account for their entire turnover, even when only a fraction of their activity is connected to UK users.
Ofcom has rejected the criticism and said its approach reflects a straightforward interpretation of the legislation. The regulator has pledged to defend its position in court, stating that its framework is consistent with Parliament’s intent.
The dispute is not isolated. Other platforms, including the US-based forum 4chan, have also resisted enforcement actions under the same law, with separate legal proceedings ongoing. The system has also attracted criticism from political figures in the United States, who argue that European digital rules unfairly target American companies.
For Ofcom, the new regime marks a major shift in funding. The regulator now expects most of its £233 million annual budget to come from online safety fees, estimated at £164 million, reducing reliance on traditional broadcasting and telecom licensing income.
While smaller platforms are largely unaffected due to revenue thresholds, the case could have wider implications for how global digital companies are regulated in the UK. The court’s ruling is expected to influence how revenue is defined across borders and how far domestic regulators can extend their financial reach over multinational tech firms operating online.
