Meta fights Ofcom over how many billions count as billions

Meta has filed for a judicial review in the UK High Court against Ofcom, the country's communications regulator, challenging the methodology used to calculate regulatory fees and maximum financial penalties under the Online Safety Act 2023. The core of the dispute centers on Ofcom's definition of "qualifying worldwide revenue," the figure used as the base for all financial enforcement under the Act.

The Online Safety Act is the UK's primary legislation governing online content, requiring platforms that host user-generated content or operate search engines to protect users from illegal material including child sexual abuse content, terrorism-related material, and hate speech. It also imposes specific statutory duties to safeguard children from age-inappropriate content. The Act grants Ofcom sweeping enforcement powers, including the ability to issue fines of up to 10 percent of a provider's qualifying worldwide revenue, or £18 million (whichever is higher), for breaches of these duties. For smaller companies, the £18 million cap applies, but for large multinational tech firms like Meta, the 10 percent global revenue threshold produces far higher potential penalties. More details on the regulator's powers are available on the Ofcom Online Safety hub.

Meta reported approximately $201 billion in total revenue for 2025, the 12-month period ending before the May 2026 judicial review filing. Ten percent of that figure is $20.1 billion, a sum Meta argues is wildly disproportionate to any potential breach of UK-specific regulations. By contrast, Meta's UK revenue from regulated services such as Facebook and Instagram is a fraction of that global total, though the company has not publicly disclosed the exact figure.

The judicial review application rests on three specific objections to Ofcom's rules. First, Meta argues that "qualifying worldwide revenue" should only include revenue earned from regulated services in the UK, not the company's entire global income. Ofcom's current definition includes all revenue generated by the parent company and all subsidiaries worldwide, regardless of whether that income comes from UK users or regulated services. Second, Meta objects to Ofcom's rule that treats multiple regulated services under the same corporate umbrella as jointly liable for penalties. This means a breach of duties on Instagram, for example, could lead to penalties calculated against the total revenue of Meta's entire group, including revenue from Facebook, WhatsApp, and other non-regulated services. Third, Meta is challenging Ofcom's decision to aggregate revenue across all regulated services, rather than assessing penalties on a per-service basis. The company argues each service should be treated as a separate entity for enforcement purposes, so a breach on one platform does not expose the entire group to larger penalties.

Ofcom has defended its methodology, stating that its definition of qualifying worldwide revenue is based on a plain reading of the Online Safety Act. A spokesperson for the regulator said: "Under the Online Safety Act, these are to be set with reference to a provider's 'Qualifying Worldwide Revenue', which we have defined based on a plain reading of the law. Disappointingly, Meta are objecting to the payment of fees, and any penalties that could be levied on companies in future, that are calculated on this basis. We will robustly defend our reasoning and decisions." Ofcom has already begun using these powers: in March 2026, it issued its first fine under the Act against anonymous imageboard 4chan, and has threatened enforcement action against X (formerly Twitter) over sexually explicit AI-generated images linked to its Grok chatbot.

Meta says it remains committed to complying with the Online Safety Act, but argues the current fee and penalty methodology is disproportionate. A Meta spokesperson said: "We are committed to cooperating constructively with Ofcom as it enforces the Online Safety Act. However, we and others in the tech industry believe its decisions on the methodology to calculate fees and potential fines are disproportionate. We believe fees and penalties should be based on the services being regulated in the countries they're being regulated in. This would still allow Ofcom to impose the largest fines in UK corporate history." Meta is not alone in its criticism: US politicians have raised concerns about the Act's extraterritorial reach, free speech campaigners argue the rules could lead to over-censorship, and tech industry groups have warned that the fee structure places an unfair burden on large platforms.

The judicial review is the latest flashpoint in ongoing tensions between Silicon Valley and the UK government over online regulation. Privacy advocates have also raised concerns about related OSA measures, including mandatory age-gating for social media services. Multiple privacy groups have warned that UK age-gating plans risk breaking core internet functionality, while children have demonstrated they can bypass age checks using simple methods like drawing fake mustaches on webcam. The EU has recently approved an open-source age-check tool designed to protect children without collecting excessive user data, a contrast to the UK's more platform-heavy approach. Separate proposals for a UK social media ban for under-16s have also drawn fire from child safety and privacy advocates, who argue such bans would push children to less regulated platforms.

For UK users, the outcome of this case will shape how effectively Ofcom can enforce the Online Safety Act. If Meta wins, maximum fines for large tech firms would be capped at a percentage of their UK-specific regulated revenue, which would still be substantial but far lower than current potential penalties. Ofcom has argued that higher maximum fines are necessary to deter non-compliance, especially for companies that generate most of their revenue outside the UK. If fines are seen as too low, platforms may deprioritize UK user safety measures, leaving people exposed to illegal or harmful content. If Meta loses, the current rules will remain in place, giving Ofcom significant leverage to enforce compliance, but potentially leading to more legal challenges from other tech firms facing similarly high penalty exposure.

For other tech companies, the joint liability and revenue aggregation rules are particularly significant. Many large platforms operate multiple services under a single corporate group: for example, Google owns YouTube and other services, while Amazon operates both its retail platform and AWS cloud services. If the High Court upholds Ofcom's current rules, all these companies could face penalties calculated against their entire global group revenue for breaches on any single UK-regulated service. If Meta succeeds in narrowing the definition of qualifying revenue, these companies would face far lower maximum penalties, changing how they allocate resources to UK compliance.

The judicial review will be heard in the High Court, with a timeline for hearings typically ranging from 3 to 6 months for complex regulatory challenges. Ofcom will be required to submit full evidence of its reasoning for the revenue definition, and Meta will present expert testimony on the disproportionate impact of global revenue calculations. The court's decision will set a binding precedent for all Online Safety Act enforcement, affecting not just Meta but every tech company operating in the UK.