4chan’s legal team has firmly rejected an attempt by UK regulator Ofcom to impose penalties under Britain’s new Online Safety Act, declaring the proposed fine unenforceable and a direct challenge to free expression protected by US law.
The media regulator wants the site to pay a £20,000 ($27,010.78) penalty, with additional daily fines if it continues to ignore requests tied to its ongoing investigation.
However, Preston Byrne, the attorney representing 4chan, argues that the demand lacks legal standing in the United States.
Speaking to the BBC, Byrne described the regulator’s actions as “an illegal campaign of harassment” directed at American tech firms.
Byrne made clear his client would not comply: “4chan has broken no laws in the United States, my client will not pay any penalty.”
Ofcom launched its investigation to determine whether the platform meets requirements laid out in the Online Safety Act, which compels digital services to shield UK-based users from “harmful” content.
In August, the regulator issued what it called a “provisional notice of contravention,” accusing 4chan of failing to respond to two formal data requests.
The site, long known for its loose moderation policies and anonymous posting, has been a regular target of controversy over the years. Its open nature allows for a broad range of user expression, which some governments now seek to restrict under the pretext of safety.
In a public statement released on X, legal representatives for 4chan doubled down.
Byrne & Storm, alongside Coleman Law, stated: “American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an email.” They argued that US courts have consistently refused to enforce foreign censorship fines, and if necessary, they would escalate the matter in federal court to protect those constitutional rights.
The statement added that US authorities were already briefed on the situation, and it urged the Trump administration to “invoke all diplomatic and legal levers” in defense of US-based platforms against what it called “extraterritorial censorship mandates.”
Ofcom declined to provide further comment while the investigation remains open.
