Meta sues UK regulator over disputed fine-calculation method under Online Safety Act
Meta has taken Ofcom to the High Court, claiming the regulator's formula for fines and fees under the Online Safety Act is unlawful and disproportionate.
Meta has filed for a judicial review of Ofcom's fee and fine calculations under the UK's Online Safety Act, asserting that the regulator's use of "qualifying worldwide revenue" exceeds its statutory authority. The company contends that counting revenue from non-regulated activities, such as enterprise software, results in a "double counting" effect that inflates potential penalties. Ofcom counters that its methodology is intended to balance effective regulation with proportionality, noting the regulations only set the calculation framework, not the penalty amount.
The dispute will be heard over two days in the English High Court. While Meta says it will cooperate with enforcement, it maintains that fees should be based solely on regulated services. Ofcom emphasizes its duty to gather data and enforce the law, acknowledging it faces several similar legal challenges from online service providers.
Why it matters
The case could reshape how UK regulators assess penalties for tech firms, affecting future enforcement under the Online Safety Act.
How the sides frame it
HIGH AGREEMENTBoth camps report Meta's legal challenge to Ofcom's fee and fine calculations, but centrist coverage highlights Meta's claim that the methods are disproportionate, while right-leaning coverage stresses Meta's argument that the regulator exceeds its statutory authority and double-counts revenue.
CENTER
Meta frames the regulator's fee and fine methods as disproportionate.
RIGHT
Meta frames the regulator's fee and fine calculations as exceeding statutory authority and inflating penalties through double counting.
The right emphasises
- regulator's use exceeds statutory authority
- double counting of revenue inflates potential penalties
- fees should be based solely on regulated services
In this story
