Meta takes Ofcom to the High Court over group-wide revenue in Online Safety Act fines
Meta is challenging Ofcom in the High Court over the revenue definition that sets Online Safety Act fines at up to 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue. Meta says the Act gives Ofcom no power to count unregulated revenue when it names several entities, City AM reported.
The Board Room · Leadership desk
Firms found to have breached safety rules can face fines of up to 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue or 18m pounds, whichever is higher. Ten per cent of qualifying worldwide revenue equals the 18m pound figure at 180m pounds of revenue.
| Figure | Value | Note | Claim |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum fine, share of qualifying worldwide revenue | 10% up to | 4 | |
| Alternative cap, if higher | 18 million pounds | 4 | |
| Revenue at which caps equal | 180 million pounds | 10 |
What happened
- The English High Court listed the judicial review for Tuesday and Wednesday, City AM reported.
- Ofcom bases a penalty on one entity's revenue if it enforces against that entity alone, and on the whole group's revenue, enterprise software included, if it enforces against several.
- In filings seen by City AM, Meta says Ofcom took the "broadest possible approach" to give itself power to fine "at an unprecedented level of magnitude".
- Ofcom argued that Meta "is incorrect" and that it "struck a careful balance" in adopting its approach.
- Oliver Griffiths, Ofcom's group director for online safety, told a House of Lords committee on 15 September that Meta has brought two sets of proceedings over fee calculation.
Why it matters
- Who's exposed exposure As drafted, a group's maximum depends on how many of its entities Ofcom names. A provider with a regulated service in one subsidiary and other businesses elsewhere faces a different ceiling depending on that choice.
- What doesn't add up contradiction Meta calls Ofcom's methodology "disproportionate", yet its spokesperson says Meta's preferred base "would still allow Ofcom to impose the largest fines in UK corporate history". What Meta contests is the base.
- What it sets up precedent Griffiths said other providers are bringing similar claims, so a ruling on the definition could reach cases beyond Meta's.
Next story · Product · 2h ago
Meta says it fixed Ray-Ban glasses that recorded conversations without the wake phraseConfirmed4 publishers
Meta's ground, as City AM describes the filings, concerns revenue from non-regulated services. The filings say the Act gives Ofcom no power to add that revenue when it pursues several entities, and they call the result a "double counting" approach [11]. The percentage limb also bites only above a certain size. Ten per cent equals the £18m figure at £180m of qualifying worldwide revenue [10], and the cap is whichever amount is higher [4]. So the definition of revenue changes the maximum only for providers above £180m.
Ofcom's answer goes to what the rules are for. Its filing says: "A fundamental flaw with this argument is that it was no part of the purpose of the QWR Regulations to set the 'level' of any penalty. The QWR Regulations determine the methodology for calculating the maximum penalty in a particular case, but Ofcom will determine the appropriate and proportionate level of penalty on the facts of the case at hand" [14]. We think the distinction is sound and incomplete. A maximum is not a fine, and Ofcom has put its commitment to proportionality on the record. But in a case against several entities, the group-wide maximum is the figure fixed by regulation, and the level depends on facts Ofcom has yet to find in that case.
Meta's public position is wider than that ground. Its spokesperson said: "We believe fees and penalties should be based on the services being regulated in the countries where they're being regulated" [6]. That adds geography to the point about non-regulated services. In our view a ruling confined to non-regulated revenue would leave the geographic question open.
City AM reported no judgment date, no interim order and no open Ofcom enforcement case against Meta. The definition under challenge is the one Ofcom created and drafted in September last year [3]. An Ofcom spokesperson said: "While legal challenges are an important part of any regulatory regime, we will defend them robustly as part of our mission of making life safer online for people in the UK" [15]. The hearing took two days. Whatever the court says about the multi-entity branch would set the base in later cases against a parent and its subsidiaries.
What to watch
- The High Court judgment, and whether it addresses the multi-entity branch, the geographic point, or Meta's second proceeding on fee calculation.
- Whether Ofcom names a parent and its subsidiaries together in an enforcement case; that is the point at which the group-wide base would apply.
- Outcomes in the similar claims Griffiths said other providers are bringing.
Clarity's read
What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.
Reality
- Evidence58
- Adoption
- Not scored
- Hype gap
- Not scored
- Incentives70
- Confidence72
Claim ledger
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
- [1]
Meta has challenged Ofcom in the English High Court over its definition of 'qualifying worldwide revenue', used to calculate fees and fines under the Online Safety Act, arguing the methods are disproportionate and unlawful.
- [2]
The judicial review hearing in the English High Court was scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday.
- [3]
Ofcom created and drafted the Qualifying Worldwide Revenue provisions in September last year under the Online Safety Act.
- [4]
Firms found to have breached safety rules can face fines of up to 10 per cent of qualifying worldwide revenue or 18m pounds, whichever is the higher amount.
- [5]
If Ofcom enforces against a single entity owned by a tech firm, it calculates penalties based only on that entity's revenue; if it enforces against multiple entities, including a parent and subsidiaries, it can instead calculate on the group's total revenue from everything, including non-regulated activities such as enterprise software.
- [6]
A Meta spokesperson said: 'We believe fees and penalties should be based on the services being regulated in the countries where they're being regulated.'
- [7]
The Meta spokesperson said the company believes Ofcom's methodology decisions are 'disproportionate' and that Meta's preferred approach 'would still allow Ofcom to impose the largest fines in UK corporate history'.
- [8]
Ofcom's group director for online safety, Oliver Griffiths, told the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee on 15 September that the regulator faces two lots of legal proceedings brought by Meta over its fee calculation.
- [9]
Griffiths said other online service providers are bringing similar claims against Ofcom.
- [10]
Ten per cent of qualifying worldwide revenue equals the 18m pound figure at 180m pounds of revenue.
- [11]
According to court filings seen by City AM, Meta alleges the Online Safety Act does not give Ofcom powers to include revenue for non-regulated services when pursuing multiple entities, so Ofcom is breaching its statutory powers and 'acting irrationally' by creating a 'double counting' approach to fines and fees.
- [12]
Meta claims Ofcom deliberately adopted the 'broadest possible approach' to grant itself power to impose financial penalties on providers 'at an unprecedented level of magnitude'.
- [13]
Ofcom argued that Meta 'is incorrect' and that it 'struck a careful balance' in adopting its approach to calculating financial penalties.
- [14]
Ofcom said in court filings: 'A fundamental flaw with this argument is that it was no part of the purpose of the QWR Regulations to set the 'level' of any penalty. The QWR Regulations determine the methodology for calculating the maximum penalty in a particular case, but Ofcom will determine the appropriate and proportionate level of penalty on the facts of the case at hand'.
- [15]
An Ofcom spokesperson said: 'While legal challenges are an important part of any regulatory regime, we will defend them robustly as part of our mission of making life safer online for people in the UK.'
Sources
2 independent publishers whose own reporting we read for this story.
- channelnewsasia.comMeta challenges UK online safety watchdog over how fees and fines are calculated
1 article · October 13, 2026
- cityam.comMeta challenges Ofcom in court for ‘acting irrationally’ in fine and fee pricing
1 article · October 13, 2026
Topics and entities
Topics
- Technology Regulation
- Online Safety Act
Entities
- Oliver Griffiths
- Online Safety Act
- Meta
- Ofcom