What judicial rulings exist that challenge Ofcom’s technology‑notice regime under the Online Safety Act since 2024?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
No domestic judicial ruling directly challenging Ofcom’s power to issue Technology Notices under the Online Safety Act is reported in the provided sources; the record instead shows regulatory design, government‑regulator disagreements, industry consultation and early enforcement activity—but not court decisions overturning or narrowing the Technology‑Notice regime [1] [2] [3].
1. What the Technology‑Notice power is, and where it sits in the law
Ofcom’s Technology‑Notice power is embedded within the Online Safety Act’s illegal‑harms architecture and allows the regulator to require platforms to use accredited safety technologies that meet minimum accuracy standards described in its consultation materials; Ofcom published a consultation setting out those policy proposals and the accreditation threshold in December 2024 [1] [4].
2. Regulatory activity and early enforcement—motivation for legal challenge
The public record details Ofcom pressing major providers for improved risk assessments, active compliance remediation and enforcement where firms failed to produce required records, signalling an assertive regulatory posture that could prompt litigation from affected firms—but those records document regulator action and industry response, not court rulings that have tested the Technology‑Notice power itself [5] [6] [3].
3. Political and administrative pushback as an indirect challenge
Parliamentary and ministerial exchanges have highlighted tensions over scope and thresholds—Ministers and Ofcom disagree on aspects of the Act’s reach and on implementation timelines, and the Secretary of State has been actively involved in setting thresholds and expressing concerns about scope and delay—these political disputes create the background for potential judicial review claims but do not equate to judicial findings against Ofcom’s Technology Notices [7] [8] [9].
4. Industry concerns and the likely legal arguments that could be mounted
Industry commentary and legal guidance papers emphasise that Ofcom’s codes and guidance are detailed and that adopting the guidance is the straightforward path to compliance, while also flagging proportionality, accuracy thresholds for automated detection and the practical burdens on services—these are the typical bases on which providers might seek judicial review (e.g., arguing irrationality, disproportionate interference with freedom of expression or privacy, or flawed evidence for accreditation thresholds) but the sources report consultations and guidance rather than filed or decided litigation [10] [4] [11].
5. What the sources do show about technology standards and accreditation debates
Ofcom’s consultation explicitly contemplates minimum accuracy standards before it could require a technology under a Notice and seeks industry input on those criteria; that emphasis on technical accreditation is central to the legal and policy debate because it ties regulatory compulsion to measurable performance thresholds—a design intended to blunt legal challenges but not yet tested in court in the provided materials [1] [4].
6. Where judicial scrutiny might realistically emerge next
Given the regulator’s move to enforce illegal‑harms codes, the creation of the Small but Risky Services Taskforce and the staged rollout of duties and fees—plus government scrutiny over timelines—any large provider, or a coalition of smaller firms, could seek judicial review of an issued Technology Notice on grounds reflected in the consultations (accuracy, proportionality, procedural fairness); the supplied record, however, stops short of reporting any such judicial proceedings or judgments [12] [5] [13].
7. Limitations of the reporting and the honest take
The sources supplied are regulatory documents, explanatory briefings, consultations and industry analyses; none reports a court judgment since 2024 that has successfully challenged or struck down Ofcom’s Technology‑Notice power—if judicial rulings exist outside these documents, they are not in the provided corpus and this analysis cannot assert their presence or content [1] [2] [7].
8. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
Ofcom presents its regime as necessary to stop illegal harms and ties Notices to accredited technology thresholds [1] [5]; industry and some ministers stress proportionality, burden and scope, reflecting commercial and political incentives to limit regulatory reach [11] [8]. Advocacy groups prioritise victim protection and may view technology compulsion as essential, a stance that aligns with Ofcom’s enforcement focus but could also bias discussions toward rapid deployment of automated tools [6] [3].