LONDON, Oct 30 (Reuters) – Meta, TikTok and X lost a legal challenge against British regulator Ofcom on Friday over information requests made under the Online Safety Act, in one of the first tests of Britain’s nascent online safety regime.
The case is one of several brought over parts of the 2023 act, which sets tougher standards for platforms such as TikTok, X and Meta’s Facebook and Instagram with the aim of protecting particularly children from harmful and illegal content.
Friday’s decision by London’s High Court is a boost for Ofcom, though a potentially more significant ruling on Meta’s separate case about how Ofcom calculates fees and potential fines is awaited.
Meta, which is also challenging Ofcom over the categorisation of WhatsApp in the new regime, was made the subject of Ofcom’s first formal investigation under the Online Safety Act earlier this month.
X and Meta did not immediately respond to requests for comment. TikTok said it is considering the judgment, without giving further details.
OFCOM REQUESTED METRICS FROM META, TIKTOK, X
Ofcom has been gradually implementing the Online Safety Act regime, with its requirements backed up by the threat of fines of up to 10% of a company’s global turnover for the most serious breaches.
The regulator issued information notices to Meta, TikTok and X in February, requesting detailed content moderation metrics including data on how many posts were removed or had visibility restricted, and how many users were exposed to harmful content.
Meta, TikTok and X argued the notices create unprecedented regulatory burdens, with X claiming that what it described as “the most burdensome information request X has received from any regulator” would cost it millions of pounds.
But their case was dismissed by the High Court, which in its ruling rejected their arguments that the information requests were disproportionate.
An Ofcom spokesperson welcomed the ruling, saying that “gathering information from companies is fundamental to our ability to do our job”.
(Reporting by Sam Tobin; editing by William James and Sam Tabahriti)
Comments