July 2025 marked the start of a legal shift meant to curb damaging material on internet services. Funding oversight duties now fall partly on big tech firms, each paying yearly charges based on global earnings. These payments support Ofcom’s work monitoring digital spaces. Rules took effect without delay once enacted. Revenue ties ensure contributions scale with company size.
Later in 2025, new rules took effect targeting firms with annual earnings above £250 million.
These apply specifically to digital spaces like social networks and search tools - any platform allowing user-generated posts falls under scrutiny. While scale matters, the core focus remains on interactive online environments. Revenue size triggers obligation; activity type defines scope.
What stands out is how Meta views the regulator's approach to setting operational charges and potential fines as skewed, placing too much burden on just a few major tech players. Shaped by courtroom arguments, legal representatives emphasized that today’s framework demands disproportionate contributions from firms like theirs.
Though the Online Safety Act applies across a wide range of online services, the cost structure reflects something narrower in practice. One outcome - seen clearly - is that even minor shifts in methodology could alter financial exposure significantly. Behind these figures lies an assumption: larger platforms must pay more simply because they can. Yet the law itself does not single them out for heavier obligations.
Instead, what emerges is a system where scale becomes a proxy for liability without clear justification.
Disputing the method behind calculating eligible international income forms part of the legal argument. Court documents show Meta arguing penalties ought to reflect earnings only from UK-based operations, not total global turnover.
Should firms fail to meet online safety duties, penalty amounts might reach 10% of global turnover - or £18 million - whichever figure exceeds the other.
Another layer emerges where Meta contests methods used to assign sanctions if several units within one corporate family share fault.
Later in London, at an early court session, officials heard that Epic Games - creator of Fortnite - and the Computer and Communications Industry Association might ask to join the legal matter. The possibility emerged through statements presented to the High Court.
Later this year, more sessions will follow after Mr Justice Chamberlain pointed to matters of broad public significance in the case. Come October, a complete hearing should unfold.
Following prior disputes over the Online Safety Act by various groups, litigation has now emerged again. Though distinct, last year’s challenge by the Wikimedia Foundation dealt with related rules on age checks - and ended in defeat.
Despite pushback, Ofcom stood by its method, saying fees and penalties followed directly from how the law is written. Rather than accept Meta's concerns, the authority insisted the system makes sure firms with major online influence support efforts to keep users safe.
Still, Meta insists it will keep working alongside Ofcom, though parts of the rollout feel excessive to them. Even with their suggested adjustments, oversight bodies could still hand down penalties among the highest ever seen on British companies.
