Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, has initiated a judicial review challenging how Britain’s communications regulator, Ofcom, calculates fees and penalties under the Online Safety Act.
The company is disputing Ofcom’s chosen methodology for determining the financial obligations that flow from the legislation. According to the regulator, fees and penalties are derived using a provider’s "Qualifying Worldwide Revenue," a measure that Ofcom says it has defined in line with what it described as a straightforward interpretation of the statute.
An Ofcom spokesperson said Meta is objecting to the prospect of fee payments and to any future penalties assessed on the basis of this revenue-focused approach. The regulator also stated it will defend both its interpretation of the law and the decisions it has reached under that interpretation.
Context and regulatory role
The Online Safety Act places duties on social media platforms and other online services to meet specified regulatory standards, with Ofcom charged with enforcement responsibilities and with collecting fees under the framework. The dispute centers on how the financial contributions required of regulated providers are measured and applied.
Implications of the legal action
By seeking a judicial review, Meta is asking the courts to examine the legal basis for Ofcom’s fee calculations. The company’s objection specifically targets the use of a worldwide revenue metric as the basis for both current fee liabilities and potential future penalties.
Ofcom has signaled it will defend its approach in court, indicating that the regulator believes its definition and application of "Qualifying Worldwide Revenue" reflect a clear reading of the statute.
What is clear - and what remains unsettled
The facts before the court are straightforward: Meta has formally challenged Ofcom’s fee-calculation methodology under the Online Safety Act, and Ofcom maintains that it will defend its interpretation. The ultimate legal outcome and any subsequent financial impact on the company or the broader sector will depend on the court’s ruling, which has not been provided in the information available.