Meta, TikTok and X Challenge Ofcom’s Data Demands Under UK Online Safety Law

Meta, TikTok and X are challenging Britain's communications regulator Ofcom over the amount of information it is demanding from the social media companies, opening an important legal test of the powers underpinning the UK's new online safety regime.

The dispute is among the first challenges connected with the 2023 Online Safety Act, which imposes tougher obligations on platforms including TikTok, X and Meta's Facebook and Instagram to protect users, particularly children, from harmful and illegal content.

Ofcom has been gradually implementing the regime, backed by the threat of fines of up to 10% of a company's global turnover for the most serious breaches. The regulator's information-gathering powers are therefore becoming a significant source of potential exposure for the technology companies as Britain moves from legislation to active enforcement.

The immediate dispute centers on information notices Ofcom issued in February requesting detailed content moderation data from the companies. The regulator sought information including how many posts were removed or had their visibility restricted, as well as how many users were exposed to harmful content.

The companies argue that the requests go far beyond ordinary regulatory reporting and impose an unprecedented burden on their operations.

In a witness statement submitted to the court, X described Ofcom's request as "the most burdensome information request X has received from any regulator in any jurisdiction".

Meta similarly argued in court filings that Ofcom was seeking "wide-ranging and granular information" covering seven of its services without a clearly defined regulatory purpose.

TikTok has also challenged the regulator's approach, arguing that Ofcom circumvented an alternative monitoring regime that already contains specific safeguards.

The dispute goes beyond the amount of paperwork the companies must produce. At its core is a question over the scope of regulatory authority in an industry that has historically operated across national borders with relatively limited direct oversight.

Data Demands Become a Test of Regulatory Power

Ofcom says the information is necessary to determine whether the Online Safety Act is achieving its objectives and that the regulator reduced the scope of its requests before implementation.

The regulator's position is that it cannot effectively assess whether platforms are complying with their new obligations without access to detailed information about what happens to harmful content once it appears on their services.

"Parliament has charged us with the job of regulating an industry that has been unregulated and unaccountable for more than 20 years," an Ofcom spokesperson said in a statement.

That argument puts the dispute in the broader context of Britain's attempt to impose accountability on social media companies whose scale and business models have historically made their internal moderation systems difficult for governments and outside observers to scrutinize.

For Ofcom, granular information on content removals, restricted visibility and user exposure could provide the evidence needed to determine whether platforms are actually reducing harmful content or simply complying with rules on paper.

For the technology companies, however, the breadth of the requests raises questions about proportionality, regulatory duplication and the cost of producing highly detailed information across multiple services.

Those concerns could increasingly come to the fore as regulators in Britain and elsewhere seek more direct access to the operational data behind social media platforms. The companies already face different reporting, privacy and safety requirements across multiple jurisdictions, and an expansion in information demands could create substantial compliance costs.

The financial stakes also make the legal dispute more consequential. Ofcom can impose fines of up to 10% of a company's global turnover for the most serious breaches, giving the regulator considerably more leverage than a conventional reporting authority.

For companies such as Meta, TikTok and X, whose platforms operate at enormous scale, even a regulatory investigation that does not ultimately result in a major penalty can involve significant legal, technical and operational resources. The court's decision could therefore help define the boundary between Ofcom's ability to investigate compliance and the limits on the information it can require from platforms.

The hearing is scheduled to conclude on Wednesday. Another legal challenge from Meta, this time concerning how Ofcom calculates fees and penalties, is expected to be heard next week.

Taken together, the cases indicate that Britain's online safety framework is entering a more contentious phase. The legislation established broad responsibilities for technology platforms, but its practical effect will depend heavily on how aggressively Ofcom uses its investigative powers and how courts interpret the regulator's authority.

The companies' challenge also shows that the transition from voluntary or fragmented platform oversight to a formal regulatory system is likely to involve sustained resistance. Ofcom is seeking enough information to determine whether some of the world's largest social media companies are meeting legally enforceable safety obligations, while the companies are testing how far those demands can extend.

The outcome will matter beyond the immediate information requests. A win for Ofcom is expected to strengthen the regulator's ability to demand detailed operational data as it develops the online safety regime. But if the companies succeed in narrowing the requests, regulators may face tighter limits on how they collect evidence needed to assess platform compliance.

Either way, the case is becoming an early measure of how Britain's ambitious online safety law will work in practice once regulation moves from broad statutory obligations to detailed scrutiny of how technology platforms actually operate.