What penalties were handed down for Online Safety Bill convictions in 2024?

Executive Summary: The Online Safety Act created new criminal offences on 31 January 2024 and produced prosecutions and convictions for a range of online harms; penalties reported for convictions in 2024 included short custodial sentences, fines, and in at least one reported case a three‑month jail term plus a small fine, while the regime also empowers Ofcom to impose corporate penalties up to £18 million or 10% of global turnover for platform non‑compliance ^{[1] [2]}. Reporting shows nearly 300 people charged with 67 convictions under the law by early 2025, and subsequent cases under the Act have produced far more severe sentences in later prosecutions, underscoring both prosecutorial discretion and the Act’s wide sentencing range ^{[1] [3]}.

1. How the law changed the landscape — new offences, broad enforcement powers

The Online Safety Act came into force on 31 January 2024 and criminalised several categories of online conduct including encouraging serious self‑harm, cyberflashing, threatening communications, intimate image abuse, and illegal false communications; the law also created potent regulatory tools allowing Ofcom to levy fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue and to direct payment processors, advertisers and ISPs to cut ties with non‑compliant services ^[2]. Proponents framed these measures as necessary to tackle online harms rapidly; critics warned that sweeping definitions — especially around false communications — risk chilling lawful speech. The statutory framework therefore paired criminal sanctions against individuals with heavy administrative penalties against platforms, creating dual tracks for punishment and compliance enforcement ^[2].

2. What convictions in 2024 actually produced — concrete penalties reported

Reporting aggregated after the Act’s first year shows prosecutions moving into conviction and sentencing. By early 2025, nearly 300 people had been charged and 67 convicted under the new offences, with penalties ranging from fines to custodial sentences; one documented 2024 conviction resulted in Dimitrie Stoica receiving a three‑month jail term and a £154 fine for making a false claim during a TikTok livestream, illustrating how some initial sentences were short and focused on deterrence and culpability proportionality ^[1]. Other convictions under cyberflashing and threatening communications in 2024 produced prison terms of up to 51 weeks or fines, indicating a range of outcomes shaped by offence seriousness and case facts ^[1].

3. High‑profile escalation and sentencing variability — later cases show wider range

While many early 2024 sentences were relatively short, later prosecutions under the Act demonstrated the law’s capacity for far harsher punishment. A 2025 case resulted in a lengthy extended sentence of 20 years for a defendant convicted of repeated, severe abuse involving a minor, showing that serious offending under the Act can attract long custodial terms where harm and culpability are extreme ^[3]. This contrast between three‑month sentences for certain false‑communication offences and multi‑year extended sentences for aggravated child‑abuse offences highlights the Act’s broad sentencing discretion and the prosecutorial gradient from misdemeanour‑level penalties to grave custodial consequences ^{[3] [1]}.

4. Corporate penalties and secondary levers — fines, deplatforming and business pressure

Beyond individual sentences, the Act built in mechanisms to pressure platforms and intermediaries: Ofcom’s administrative powers include imposing very large fines and ordering payment providers, app stores, advertisers and ISPs to withdraw services from non‑compliant sites, effectively de‑monetising and restricting accessibility ^[2]. Media reporting and industry reaction show platforms responding by reassessing their UK operations, with some services reducing features or withdrawing entirely in response to enforcement risk. This corporate enforcement angle matters because it changes incentives: regulators can pursue platform compliance through financial and access penalties, separate from criminal prosecutions against users or managers ^[2].

5. Competing narratives, international scrutiny and the policy trade‑offs

Debate around the Act reflects clear, competing objectives: government and child‑safety advocates emphasize urgent protection against online harms, whereas free‑speech groups and some international partners warn the law’s breadth — especially criminalising false communications — risks chilling legitimate expression and press freedom; the US has urged reconsideration of aspects of the regime, reflecting diplomatic concern about speech restrictions ^[1]. Reporting indicates these tensions shaped enforcement choices and public reaction: defenders point to convictions and corporate compliance as evidence of protection, while critics point to prosecutions for false claims and platform withdrawals as unintended consequences. The factual record therefore shows substantive penalties for 2024 convictions, broad corporate penalties available, and an ongoing policy debate about proportionality and rights ^{[1] [2]}.