The operator behind the American imageboard 4chan has been hit with a £20,000 ($26,650) fine by the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom, which, under the controversial censorship law, the Online Safety Act, has begun targeting online platforms.
The penalty comes after 4chan declined to provide details on how, or whether, it’s complying with the legislation that critics of censorship argue grants the UK government broad authority over digital platforms.
The fine had been anticipated since August. That decision has now been finalized, according to a statement issued by the regulator.
Beyond the lump sum, Ofcom will begin charging an additional £100 ($133) every day starting Tuesday, a compounding penalty that will continue for up to 60 days or until 4chan responds to its demands, whichever comes first.
Ofcom’s Director of Enforcement, Suzanne Cater, claimed the agency is serious about enforcing the new law.
“Today sends a clear message that any service which flagrantly fails to engage with Ofcom and their duties under the Online Safety Act can expect to face robust enforcement action.” She further asserted that some platforms are already adopting new safeguards following pressure from the regulator, while warning that services choosing to limit their availability to UK users rather than implement content filters remain under scrutiny.
Technology Secretary Liz Kendall celebrated the action, calling it a model of the law in practice. “The Online Safety Act is not just law, it’s a lifeline. Today we’ve seen it in action, holding platforms to account so we can protect people across the UK.”
She went on to claim: “This fine serves a clear warning to those who fail to remove illegal content or protect children from harmful material. We fully back the regulator in taking action against all platforms that do not protect users from the darkest corners of the internet.”
Preston Byrne, who represents 4chan in the case, has previously condemned the action in unambiguous terms.
Byrne called it “an illegal campaign of harassment” against American tech firms, and added, “4chan has broken no laws in the United States – my client will not pay any penalty.”
Legal counsel for the platform, including firms Byrne & Storm and Coleman Law, remain adamant that the regulator has no power to enforce such measures in the United States.
In response to the confirmed fine, Preston Byrne issued a scathing public response that leaves no doubt about the platform’s position.
“4chan’s constitutional rights remain completely unaffected by this foreign e-mail,” Byrne wrote. “4chan will obey UK censorship laws when pigs fly.” He added that litigation is already underway in Washington, D.C., and made it clear the matter is heading for a courtroom showdown: “In the meantime, there’s litigation pending in DC. Ofcom hasn’t yet answered. We’ll see Ofcom in court.”
Byrne followed up with an even more biting remark, mocking Ofcom’s enforcement efforts as a legal fantasy. “You have to laugh. That Americans don’t obey British censors is settled law here; Ofcom might as well have ordered that the Moon be made of cheese.”
He concluded with a blunt assessment of the regulator’s lack of reach: “That fine will never be enforced in the USA. The UK is welcome to try to enforce it in an American court if they disagree.”
The federal lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. In that case, 4chan and Kiwi Farms are jointly challenging Ofcom’s enforcement tactics, describing them as unconstitutional and in violation of American sovereignty. The complaint argues that the Online Safety Act cannot be applied to platforms that are based entirely in the United States and operate within the bounds of US law.
Ronald Coleman of Coleman Law framed the lawsuit as a vital stand for national autonomy: “With this action, our clients defend the free speech rights of every American,” he stated. “Foreign interference of the type seen in this case is precisely what the First Amendment is meant to protect against.”
The lawsuit describes Ofcom’s attempts as “egregious violations of Americans’ civil rights,” calling out the regulator for issuing legal threats and enforcement notices without going through proper legal channels such as the UK-US Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.
The filings insist that these notices have no lawful effect in the US and are “repugnant to United States public policy.”
