Meta, TikTok and X have lost a legal challenge against Britain’s communications regulator Ofcom over demands for detailed information about how their platforms moderate harmful and illegal content.
London’s High Court on October 30 rejected the companies’ arguments that Ofcom’s information requests were disproportionate. The decision allows the regulator to proceed with its demands under the country’s Online Safety Act, marking an important judicial test of the law’s enforcement powers.
The case involves information notices issued by Ofcom to the three companies in February 2026. The regulator sought detailed content moderation data to assess how effectively the platforms were addressing harmful material.
High Court Upholds Ofcom’s Information Requests
Ofcom asked Meta, TikTok and X to provide metrics showing how many posts were removed or had their visibility restricted. It also sought information about how many users encountered harmful content on their services.
The companies challenged the notices, arguing that the volume and scope of information required created excessive regulatory burdens.
X described the request as the most burdensome information demand it had received from any regulator and said collecting the data could cost millions of pounds.
However, the High Court rejected the companies’ arguments. The judges concluded that the platforms had not sufficiently demonstrated why the notices were unreasonably onerous and declined to set them aside.
Ofcom welcomed the decision, saying that collecting information from companies is fundamental to its ability to carry out regulatory duties.
Why Meta, TikTok And X Opposed The Demands
The companies argued that Ofcom’s requests went beyond what was necessary to assess compliance with online safety requirements.
Their objections centred on the amount of information sought and the work involved in collecting and processing it. TikTok argued that the requests required extensive quantitative data about content moderation, while X said the exercise would involve complex analysis of large datasets.
Meta also questioned whether the regulator had acted within the limits of its legal powers.
The court’s decision means these objections have not prevented Ofcom from pursuing the information requests. The ruling does not, however, settle every dispute between the regulator and the companies under the Online Safety Act.
Meta said it was disappointed with the judgment and maintained that the information-gathering exercise went beyond what was necessary or proportionate. TikTok said it was considering the decision, while X did not immediately comment.
Online Safety Act Gives Ofcom Significant Enforcement Powers
The Online Safety Act was passed in 2023 to place stronger obligations on online platforms to address illegal content and protect users, particularly children, from harmful material.
Ofcom is responsible for implementing and enforcing the regime. For the most serious breaches, the regulator can impose penalties of up to 10% of a company’s global turnover.
The law also gives Ofcom powers to demand information from regulated services. Such information can help the regulator assess whether platforms’ safety measures are working in practice, rather than relying only on companies’ own descriptions of their systems.
The latest judgment strengthens Ofcom’s ability to use those information-gathering powers. It also establishes that the companies’ general claims about the scale of the work were not enough to invalidate the notices in this case.
Other Legal Disputes With Ofcom Remain Pending
The ruling is separate from other challenges involving the regulator.
Meta is pursuing a separate legal case concerning how Ofcom calculates fees and potential penalties. It is also challenging the categorisation of WhatsApp under the UK’s online safety framework.
The latest judgment therefore does not resolve the wider legal disagreements between the technology companies and the regulator.
Instead, it addresses a specific question: whether Ofcom could require the platforms to provide extensive information about their content moderation systems.
What This Means For You
For users, the decision could help regulators obtain more detailed evidence about how social media platforms handle harmful and illegal content.
Information about removed posts, restricted visibility and user exposure can help authorities assess whether safety measures are reducing risks in practice.
The ruling does not guarantee that harmful content will disappear from social media or establish that the platforms have violated the law. It concerns the regulator’s authority to obtain information needed to examine their compliance.
For technology companies, however, the decision reinforces the importance of maintaining records and systems that can support detailed regulatory scrutiny. Platforms operating in the UK may face greater pressure to demonstrate how their safety policies work, not simply explain what those policies are.
