Can a country regulate websites that aren’t even on its soil? US platforms 4chan and Kiwi Farms are challenging the UK’s Online Safety Act in court, arguing it overreaches and stifles free speech. It’s a digital showdown with massive implications for internet governance worldwide. Who really holds the keys to the global web?
A contentious legal battle has erupted between prominent U.S. online platforms and the United Kingdom’s media regulator, Ofcom, sparking a critical debate over internet governance and the global reach of national laws. At the heart of the dispute is the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA), which U.S.-based websites 4chan and Kiwi Farms contend infringes upon Americans’ fundamental right to free speech across digital borders.
On August 27, 4chan, a popular imageboard, and Kiwi Farms, a web forum, jointly filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Their target is Ofcom, the UK’s powerful communications regulator, which they accuse of attempting to impose its rules extraterritorially on platforms with no physical presence or operations within the United Kingdom.
Hailed by the UK government as a pioneering piece of legislation, the Online Safety Act became law in October 2023. While certain measures targeting so-called illegal content are slated for full effect in March 2025, its broad mandates already require user-interactive sites to undertake illegal-harm risk assessments and file them with Ofcom, with a deadline of March 31 for submission.
The lawsuit explicitly states that Ofcom has demanded compliance from both 4chan and Kiwi Farms, despite their being U.S.-based entities without any UK operational footprint. The plaintiffs further claim that the regulator has threatened substantial financial penalties, including an initial fine of 20,000 pounds (approximately $27,000) and daily fines of 100 pounds (about $135) for up to 60 days, underscoring the serious nature of the regulatory pressure.
Representing 4chan and Kiwi Farms, U.S. lawyer Preston Byrne articulated the core of their argument in an August 27 post on X: “When someone in the UK navigates to a US webserver, that server isn’t teleported to England and subject to its rules.” This vivid analogy underscores the platforms’ assertion that cross-border regulation of digital content effectively attempts to extend a nation’s legal jurisdiction far beyond its geographical boundaries, thereby impacting global digital rights and online expression.
The companies’ legal filing strongly asserts that Ofcom’s “ambitions are to regulate internet communications for the entire world, regardless of where these websites are based or whether they have any connection to the UK.” Byrne elaborated on this, suggesting there are “literally a zillion ways that the UK could achieve the stated aims of the Online Safety Act without censoring the global web,” highlighting the contentious nature of this approach to internet governance.
Conversely, Ofcom maintains its authority, stating that “any service that has links with the UK now has duties to protect UK users, no matter where in the world it is based.” A spokesperson clarified that the act does not extend to protecting users elsewhere in the world, yet noncompliance by global platforms could lead to severe enforcement actions, including fines of up to 18 million pounds (about $24 million) or 10 percent of annual revenue, or even court orders to block access within the UK. This clash of jurisdictions sets a precedent for platform liability and digital sovereignty in an increasingly interconnected world.
