Meta Takes Ofcom to the High Court Over How the UK Calculates Online Safety Act Bills

Overview

Meta has launched a judicial review against the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom, challenging the methodology used to calculate fees and penalties under the Online Safety Act — a dispute that could force a fundamental recalibration of how the country’s digital safety regime is funded. A preliminary hearing was held at the London High Court on May 7, 2026, before Mr Justice Chamberlain, according to AOL / Press Association. A full substantive hearing has been scheduled for October 13 and 14.

What Meta Is Challenging

The Online Safety Act, which came into force in July 2025 with regulations introduced in September 2025, allows Ofcom to charge in-scope platforms fees of between 0.02% and 0.03% of their qualifying worldwide revenue (QWR) — defined as the total global revenue derived from services regulated under the Act — and to impose penalties of up to 10% of QWR or £18 million, whichever is greater, as reported by The Register and AOL / Press Association.

Meta disputes three aspects of Ofcom’s interpretation. First, the company argues that fees and penalties should be anchored to UK-specific revenue from regulated services, not to global income. According to The Register, QWR as defined by Ofcom means that “once a service is offered to British users, the entirety of its global turnover is counted.” Second, Meta objects to rules that treat multiple services operated by the same corporate parent as jointly liable, potentially multiplying the group’s exposure. Third, it challenges how Ofcom aggregates revenue across different services rather than assessing each individually.

Meta’s KC, Monica Carss-Frisk, filed court documents describing Ofcom’s approach as “troubling,” warning that it leads to “a handful of companies, such as Meta, bearing the vast majority of Ofcom’s costs,” according to AOL / Press Association and Business Magazine.

In a public statement, a Meta spokesperson said: “We and others in the tech industry believe its decisions on the methodology to calculate fees and potential fines are disproportionate,” as quoted by Business Magazine. In a separate formulation cited by both The Register and The Next Web, the company stated: “We believe fees and penalties should be based on the services being regulated in the countries they’re being regulated in. This would still allow Ofcom to impose the largest fines in UK corporate history.”

Financial Stakes

Meta generated approximately $201 billion in global revenue last year, according to The Register and Business Magazine. Applying the 10% maximum penalty cap to that figure produces a theoretical ceiling in the range of $16 billion to $20 billion, as noted by The Next Web and Business Magazine.

Ordinary annual fees at the 0.02%–0.03% rate would amount to a few tens of millions of pounds for Meta, according to Biometric Update. Ofcom’s forecast online safety tariff revenue across all platforms in scope is £164 million, against the regulator’s annual budget of £233 million, as reported by Business Magazine. Only platforms that meet a qualifying worldwide revenue threshold of £250 million are liable; those whose UK-referable revenue falls below £10 million are exempt, as detailed by National Law Review.

Ofcom’s Position

Ofcom said in a statement that it based its approach on “a plain reading of the law” and would “robustly defend our reasoning and decisions,” according to Business Magazine and Biometric Update. A spokesperson added: “Meta have initiated a judicial review in relation to online safety fees and penalties… We will robustly defend our reasoning and decisions,” as quoted by The Register.

Ofcom’s first round of invoices is expected in September 2026. Platforms above the £250 million threshold were required to register with the regulator by April 11, 2026, as reported by National Law Review and The Next Web.

Broader Legal Front

Epic Games and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) have sought to intervene in Meta’s case as third parties, according to Biometric Update and AOL / Press Association. If Meta prevails, the implications would extend to TikTok, X, Snap, Pinterest and other large platforms in scope — none of which has yet joined Meta’s filing publicly, though most are believed to share the underlying objection, as noted by The Register and The Next Web.

The fee dispute sits alongside a separate, parallel legal front. The operators of 4chan and Kiwi Farms are pursuing their own litigation against Ofcom, with 4chan having refused to pay penalties imposed under the Act, as reported by Business Magazine.

Ofcom’s enforcement activity has been intensifying on other fronts as well. In February 2026, the regulator fined 8579 LLC — operator of several adult websites including crazyporn.xxx, love4porn.com, and justpornflix.com — £1.35 million for failing to deploy age assurance, and fined Kick Online Entertainment £800,000 for the same failing at motherless.com. Both fines invoked section 12 of the Online Safety Act, which requires platforms likely to be accessed by children to prevent children from encountering pornographic content through “highly effective age assurance,” according to Inforrm.

What We Don’t Know

The substantive judgment is unlikely to arrive before autumn 2026, according to The Next Web. It remains unclear whether Ofcom will pause issuing invoices pending the October hearing, or whether Meta’s challenge will be joined by other major platforms before the full hearing date. The court has scheduled a further procedural hearing in June 2026, as reported by AOL / Press Association.