Key facts
- Lord Justice Singh and Mrs Justice Collins Rice threw out four of the five grounds as unarguable and rejected the fifth, on proportionality.
- The court said the Act's transparency regime covers publishing information, while the notices serve Ofcom's own regulatory work.
- The judges found the companies' evidence on burden too thin and noted the objection was never put to Ofcom before the notices were issued.
- TikTok said its notice required vast quantitative data spanning three years; X said the analysis could take months.
- Meta still has a separate challenge pending over how Ofcom calculates fees and potential fines.
A Divisional Court at London's High Court dismissed a legal challenge by Meta, TikTok and X to information notices Ofcom issued under the Online Safety Act, ruling on October 30 that the demands were lawful and refusing to quash them. It was the first judicial review to test Ofcom's information powers under the 2023 law, which sets rules for social media platforms to protect children from harmful and illegal content.
The notices, sent in February under section 100 of the Act, sought detailed content moderation metrics, including how many posts were removed or had their visibility restricted and how many users were exposed to harmful content. WhatsApp received one too. The platforms called the demands unprecedented and said collecting the data would cost millions of pounds. TikTok said its notice required vast quantitative data spanning three years, while X said it would have to run complex analysis on large datasets it has no use for in its own business, a job that could take months.
The platforms also argued that Ofcom had sidestepped the Act's separate transparency regime and failed to carry out an impact assessment, and TikTok alone claimed the decision had been made in advance. Lord Justice Singh and Mrs Justice Collins Rice threw out four of the five grounds as unarguable; the fifth, on proportionality, was allowed to proceed and then rejected. The judges said the transparency regime concerns publishing information while the notices serve Ofcom's own regulatory work, and that the law's wording is broad enough that Ofcom did not need a specific task in mind before asking.
On proportionality, the court found the companies' evidence too thin to tip the balance, and noted their claim of an extraordinary burden had never been put to Ofcom when it issued the notices. The ruling strengthens Ofcom's hand as it enforces a regime backed by fines of up to 10% of global turnover. Meta still has a separate challenge pending over how Ofcom calculates fees and potential fines. Until that is resolved, the three platforms must begin compiling the data Ofcom requested.