Meta takes Ofcom fee regime to the High Court
The judicial review tests how the online-safety regulator calculates fees and potential penalties for large platforms.
Meta’s legal challenge to Ofcom’s online-safety fee and penalty framework is being heard in the High Court. The case is one of the first major tests of how the regulator’s revenue-based system should operate under the Online Safety Act.
The Divisional Court is scheduled to hear arguments on Tuesday and Wednesday in a judicial review brought by Meta Platforms against Ofcom. The case concerns the regulator’s approach to fees and penalties under the Online Safety Act, according to the court listing and a public update from barristers involved in the proceedings.
Ofcom’s online-safety functions are funded through fees charged to certain regulated service providers. The regulator says the system is designed to recover, but not exceed, the cost of its online-safety work, using a single percentage applied to qualifying worldwide revenue across eligible providers.
For the initial 2026/27 charging year, providers generally become liable when qualifying worldwide revenue reaches £250 million, unless an exemption applies. Ofcom says a provider can be exempt if UK referable revenue connected with the relevant regulated services is below £10 million; the first charging period is based on revenue from the 2024 calendar year.
The same worldwide-revenue concept is relevant to the maximum financial penalties Ofcom can impose for breaches of the Act. Its published guidance says the maximum is £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater. That does not mean every breach will result in the maximum penalty, and the current case is about the legal framework rather than a finding that Meta has broken safety rules.
The dispute matters beyond Meta because the calculation method determines which companies bear the cost of regulation and the size of the potential deterrent. Ofcom’s own published reasoning says a worldwide approach is intended to make penalties effective and reflect the scale of global groups, while acknowledging that companies with relatively small UK revenues could be affected.
The court has also allowed industry participants to intervene. The public case update identifies Epic Games and the Computer and Communications Industry Association as interveners supporting Meta’s side of the argument. No judgment or final outcome was available in the sources reviewed by 15:02; the listed hearing runs until 14 October.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The High Court hearing is listed for 13 and 14 October 2026.
- Ofcom’s fee system uses qualifying worldwide revenue and a percentage tariff.
- The initial fee threshold is £250 million, with a UK referable revenue exemption below £10 million.
- The maximum statutory penalty is £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater.
Left
Arguments Large platforms should contribute properly to the cost of regulating services that can affect millions of UK users, and global revenue is a reasonable measure of corporate capacity to pay.
Values Public protection, corporate accountability and effective enforcement against powerful technology companies.
Consequences If the challenge succeeds, enforcement could become less well funded or smaller firms could shoulder a greater share of regulatory costs.
Centre
Arguments The regime should be funded and deterrent, but its calculations must be transparent, proportionate and firmly grounded in Parliament’s wording.
Values Due process, institutional competence, predictable regulation and balanced consumer protection.
Consequences A judgment could clarify the methodology without overturning the broader principle that platforms should help fund online-safety oversight.
Right
Arguments Fees and penalties based on worldwide revenue may be disconnected from the scale of a company’s UK activity and could give regulators excessive leverage over global businesses.
Values Limited government, legal certainty, property rights and a competitive technology sector.
Consequences A worldwide approach could discourage investment or encourage companies to reduce services in the UK, while a narrower system might make penalties less effective.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Priya Shah — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The article is supported by the court listing, a same-day legal update and Ofcom’s published fee guidance. It separates confirmed procedural facts from the unresolved arguments and outcome.
- confirmed The Meta v Ofcom judicial review is listed for 13 and 14 October 2026. — The Judiciary order lists the substantive hearing on those dates. source
- confirmed The case concerns Ofcom’s approach to fees and penalties under the Online Safety Act. — This is stated in the same-day update from 11KBW, whose barristers are involved in the case. source
- confirmed Ofcom’s online-safety fees are intended to recover, but not exceed, its regulatory costs. — Ofcom describes this as the purpose of the fee regime. source
- confirmed The initial fee threshold is £250 million in qualifying worldwide revenue, with a £10 million UK referable revenue exemption. — Both thresholds are set out in Ofcom’s current guidance. source
- confirmed Ofcom can impose a maximum penalty of £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater. — Ofcom states this penalty limit in its enforcement information. source
- confirmed Epic Games and the CCIA are interveners in the case. — The same-day 11KBW update identifies both organisations as interveners. source
Editor's note
The hearing and its subject are publicly confirmed, but the full arguments and any judgment were not available in the sources reviewed by 15:02. The article therefore describes the legal framework and the live issue without predicting the result.Sources
- Meta Platforms Inc -v- Ofcom — Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
- Ruth Kennedy and Rupert Paines in Online Safety Act JR — 11KBW
- Online safety fees: what the duties are and how to comply with them — Ofcom
- Statement on Online Safety fees and penalties — Ofcom
More on this in other media
- The Guardian — „meta ofcom”
- BBC News — „meta ofcom”
- Sky News — „meta ofcom”