Background
Meta Platforms and WhatsApp, X, and TikTok sought judicial review of information notices issued by Ofcom on 10 February 2026 under section 100 of the Online Safety Act 2023. The notices required data concerning user activity, content-moderation decisions, UK users’ exposure to moderated content, appeals, and user reports, including age-disaggregated information and data dating from 1 January 2024.
Ofcom issued the notices as part of its monitoring-and-evaluation programme for the new online-safety regime. It said the information would help it assess risks to users, evaluate providers’ compliance, conduct research, and prepare and review codes of practice. The providers challenged Ofcom’s authority and decision-making on multiple grounds and contended, among other things, that the notices imposed disproportionate compliance burdens and infringed rights protected by the Human Rights Act 1998.
The Court’s Holding
The Divisional Court refused permission to pursue the grounds grouped as Issues 1 through 7. It granted permission on Issues 8 and 9, which concerned proportionality and Convention rights, but dismissed those claims on their merits.
The court held that the providers had not shown that the notices struck an unfair balance between their compliance burdens and Ofcom’s important regulatory objectives. Their evidence did not sufficiently isolate and quantify the additional burden attributable to the notices against the costs of their ordinary businesses and their wider obligations under the Online Safety Act. Ofcom, by contrast, had sought information about burden, modified draft notices following engagement with providers, and remained willing to review compliance difficulties.
The notices interfered with Article 8 rights, as the parties accepted, and might minimally control the use of property for purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Any such interference was lawful, pursued the general interest, and was proportionate. The court therefore found no breach of the Human Rights Act.
Key Takeaways
- Ofcom’s section 100 power supported mandatory requests for platform data needed to perform its online-safety functions, subject to the statutory proportionality requirement.
- A provider alleging disproportionate burden must supply concrete, contextualized evidence identifying the marginal cost and operational impact caused specifically by the notice.
- Although permission was granted on the proportionality and human-rights grounds, every judicial-review claim ultimately failed.
Why It Matters
The decision supports Ofcom’s ability to obtain extensive, including historical, platform data when building and evaluating the United Kingdom’s online-safety regulatory regime. It also illustrates the evidentiary demands facing regulated businesses that seek to invalidate information notices as unduly burdensome.
The judgment does not treat regulatory information demands as immune from human-rights or proportionality review. It instead shows that generalized descriptions of substantial effort will carry limited weight without evidence connecting the challenged notice to a measurable incremental burden.