On October 30, 2026, the UK High Court dismissed challenges by Meta, WhatsApp, X and TikTok to information notices from communications regulator Ofcom. The notices, issued under section 100 of the Online Safety Act 2023, seek data about platform activity and content moderation. The ruling concerns those notices, not the Act as a whole. (High Court judgment)
What information did Ofcom request?
The notices ask for information in six areas, including how platforms define the terms used in their data and what happens to content users report or appeal.
| Information area | What Ofcom requested |
| Provider definitions | The definitions each platform uses for the requested data. |
| User activity | Total activity on each service, broken down by age group. |
| Moderation | Volumes of content and accounts moderated, how long action took, and the extent to which it concerned content harmful to children. |
| Exposure to actioned content | UK users’ exposure, including children’s exposure, to content that platforms had actioned. |
| Appeals | Appeal outcomes after content actions and the time taken to process appeals. |
| User reports | The volume and outcomes of reports made by UK users. |
The requested data period starts on January 1, 2024, before the Act’s duties began, to give Ofcom a reference point for tracking change. The schedule set three delivery deadlines: data from January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2025, was due June 15, 2026; data for the first half of 2026 was due September 22, 2026; and data for the second half of 2026 is due March 25, 2027.
Why did the court reject the challenges?
The court refused permission to bring challenges on seven grounds. It allowed the proportionality and human-rights grounds to proceed, then rejected both on their merits. In a judicial review, a court examines whether a public authority acted lawfully; it does not simply replace that authority’s decision with its own.
The judges treated Ofcom’s assessment that it needed the information as subject to review for rationality. The notices identified statutory purposes, including reviewing codes of practice, research and reports, and assessing compliance. Section 100 did not require Ofcom to have a specific future project already in mind.
The court also distinguished the notices from the Act’s transparency regime. That regime concerns publication, while the notices seek information for Ofcom’s regulatory work. The court said some of the requested information might not lawfully be published.
On proportionality, the court found that the companies had not sufficiently separated the notices’ additional costs and resource demands from their existing business resources and regulatory obligations. The judgment also records that the parties agreed the notices interfered with Article 8 rights, which protect private and family life. The court found the interference proportionate and no breach of the Human Rights Act.
The decision addresses the specific section 100 notices issued to Meta Platforms Inc. and WhatsApp LLC, X Internet Unlimited Company, and TikTok Information Technologies UK Ltd. It leaves the separate question of the Online Safety Act’s overall validity outside the case.
