4chan will refuse to pay daily online safety fines, lawyer tells BBC
Online message board 4chan has said it will not pay a proposed fine issued by the UK’s media regulator Ofcom under the Online Safety Act.
Ofcom’s provisional notice includes a £20,000 penalty plus daily fines until the platform complies with its requests for information. However, 4chan’s lawyer, Preston Byrne, told the BBC that Ofcom’s notices carry no legal weight in the United States and described the regulator’s investigation as “an unlawful campaign of intimidation” against American tech companies.
“4chan has broken no laws in the United States, and my client will not pay any fine,” Mr Byrne said.
Ofcom began investigating the platform earlier this year to assess whether it was meeting its obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Act. In August, it issued a provisional notice of contravention after 4chan failed to respond to two formal requests for information. The regulator said its inquiry would determine whether the site was complying with rules designed to protect users from illegal material.
Founded 22 years ago, 4chan has frequently been at the centre of controversy, including hosting misogynistic campaigns and spreading conspiracy theories. The site allows users to post anonymously, often leading to offensive content being shared.
First Amendment defence
Law firms Byrne & Storm and Coleman Law, representing 4chan, released a statement on X (formerly Twitter) arguing that the company, being based in the United States, is not subject to UK law.
“American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights merely because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an email,” they wrote.
They added that under long-established principles of US law, federal courts will not enforce foreign censorship or penal fines, and confirmed they would seek legal protection in US courts if necessary. The statement also urged the Trump administration to use “all diplomatic and legal levers” to defend US companies from “extraterritorial censorship mandates.”
Ofcom, meanwhile, maintains that the Online Safety Act applies to services that have users in the United Kingdom, regardless of where the company is registered.
Transatlantic tensions
The case highlights ongoing friction between the UK, EU and United States over the regulation of technology companies. Critics in the US argue that laws such as the Online Safety Act pose a threat to free expression.
Tulsi Gabbard recently said the UK had abandoned its controversial request for a “backdoor” in Apple’s encryption framework after pressure from the White House. Shortly afterwards, US Federal Trade Commission chair Andrew Ferguson warned major tech firms that they risk breaking American law if they compromise privacy or data security in order to comply with foreign regulations such as the Online Safety Act.
Former President Trump has also criticised international attempts to impose rules on American companies, saying: “Foreign governments trying to restrict free expression or weaken data integrity in the United States may want to simplify their processes and legal compliance controls by implementing uniform policies across jurisdictions.”
Enforcement challenges
Experts note that Ofcom faces significant hurdles if it tries to enforce the fine abroad. Emma Drake, partner specialising in online safety and privacy at law firm Bird & Bird, told the BBC that “enforcing against an offshore provider is extremely difficult.”
Instead, Ofcom could seek a UK court order requiring other companies to disrupt 4chan’s access to the British market. This could involve removing the service from search results, blocking payment services, or—if deemed necessary—asking internet service providers (ISPs) to block access entirely for UK users.
