Meta Challenges Ofcom Over Extra Rules for WhatsApp and Instagram
Meta has launched a new legal challenge against Ofcom, Britain's media regulator, over how it is implementing the Online Safety Act. The Guardian
The case centres on categorisation. Ofcom placed WhatsApp and Instagram, both owned by Meta, in a category that brings additional duties. Lawyers for the company served notice of the appeal in the week before 20 September 2026.
Think of it like leagues with different rulebooks. All services have baseline duties under the Act. Categorised services have extra duties on top. For WhatsApp and Instagram, those include greater transparency, more user controls, measures to protect users from fraudulent advertising, and more complete recording of illegal content.
This is Meta's second action. In May 2026, the company challenged in London how Ofcom calculates its charges. Meta argued charges should not be based on a company's global revenue. That case was brought in the High Court. BBC
The fee dispute is linked to fines. Breaches of the Act can be punished by fines of up to 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue or £18m, whichever is higher. Meta has argued that Ofcom's approach to fees and fines is disproportionate and unlawful and could result in fines larger than any imposed by a UK regulator. Reuters
Ofcom keeps a Register of categorised services alongside a separate list of emerging Category 1 services. Services on the emerging list do not have additional duties under the Act. Ofcom Its Online Safety industry bulletin for June 2026 covered publication of the register and consultation on additional duties for categorised services. Ofcom
Meta is not alone in court. TikTok and X have taken legal action against Ofcom over how much information companies must provide so Ofcom can monitor their services. Oliver Griffiths, Ofcom group director for online safety, told a House of Lords committee that Ofcom was operating in a highly litigious environment, including facing two actions by Meta.
A Meta spokesperson said its challenges are to how Ofcom has interpreted the Online Safety Act, not to the law itself. The legislation stands. The argument is over scope, thresholds for intervention, and cost allocation.
On child safety, Britain's media and privacy regulators have demanded that major social media platforms do more to keep children off their services. Reuters
The broader context here is how a new regulatory regime gets defined through early litigation. Categorisation determines who bears the heaviest compliance load. Transparency duties, user controls, fraud protections and illegal-content recording all require operational changes and audit trails. For messaging and photo-sharing services with very large UK user bases, the cost of compliance and the legal risk attached to failure are closely linked.
Looking at what this means for regulators and platforms, the next phase will test Ofcom's procedural resilience. If categorisation decisions survive appeal, Ofcom gains clearer authority to set expectations for the largest services and to pursue its consultation on additional duties. If courts narrow Ofcom's reading on fees, information powers or categorisation, the regulator will need to revise its instruments while still meeting statutory deadlines. Either outcome will shape how other categorised and emerging services calibrate cooperation, disclosure and legal strategy.
