📅 30 October 2026 • Courts and Tribunals Judiciary • High Court Dismisses Meta, X and TikTok Challenge to Ofcom Information Notices
On 30 October 2026 the Divisional Court of the High Court of Justice dismissed the judicial reviews brought against Ofcom by Meta Platforms Inc., WhatsApp LLC, X Internet Unlimited Company and TikTok Information Technologies UK Ltd. The judgment carries the neutral citation [2026] EWHC 2779 (Admin) and case numbers AC-2026-LON-002160, AC-2026-LON-002053 and AC-2026-LON-001872. It was handed down by Lord Justice Singh and Mrs Justice Collins Rice at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
What the notices required
Ofcom issued the disputed information notices in February 2026 under section 100 of the Online Safety Act 2023, after several months of dialogue with the companies. The notices required detailed content-moderation metrics: the definitions each provider uses, the volumes of content and accounts subject to moderation action, how many posts were removed or had visibility restricted, how many UK users including children were exposed to actioned content, and data on appeals and user reports.
How the court assessed the challenge
The claimants argued that the notices were ultra vires, disproportionate and served an improper purpose. X stated in evidence that the notice was the most burdensome information request X has received from any regulator in any jurisdiction. The court rejected every ground of challenge other than proportionality as unarguable either as a matter of law or on the facts, then assessed proportionality on the merits and rejected it as well, finding that the evidence of onerousness lacked sufficient factual substance.
What the ruling settles
The decision is the first judicial review to test Ofcom's power to issue information notices under the Online Safety Act 2023. The regime is backed by fines of up to 10 percent of a company's global turnover for the most serious breaches. It confirms that the regulator can require granular moderation data for its online-safety functions where the power is used proportionately, and it leaves separate proceedings on fees and penalties unresolved.
IMPACT
- Regulated platforms: notices of this type now have a tested legal basis, so reporting pipelines for removal volumes, visibility restrictions and exposure data should stay operational.
- Compliance teams: metric definitions and collection logs are the practical defence, and records of burden should be documented before any notice is contested.
- Ongoing litigation: Meta's separate challenge to the calculation of fees and penalties continues, so parts of the enforcement framework remain open.
Sources:
- https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-meta-x-tiktok-v-ofcom/
- https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/R-Meta-X-TikTok-v-OFCOM-press-summary.pdf
- https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2026-10-30/meta-tiktok-x-lose-legal-challenge-against-uk-watchdog-over-online-safety-data-demands
- https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/2544413
- https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/meta-tiktok-x-challenge-uk-watchdog-over-online-safety-data-demands-4932529
Continue the conversation: https://t.me/ComplianceExplained · Bluesky
Top comments (0)