UK High Court Rejects Meta, X and TikTok Challenge to Ofcom Information Demands

The High Court in London has handed Britain's online safety regulator an important early victory. On Friday, 30 October 2026, the Divisional Court dismissed judicial review claims brought by Meta and WhatsApp, X and TikTok against information notices issued by Ofcom.

The cases were the first to test in court the powers Ofcom holds to demand information from technology companies under section 100 of the Online Safety Act 2023. The judgment, given by Lord Justice Singh and Mrs Justice Collins Rice, is reported as [2026] EWHC 2779 (Admin).

For a regulator that depends on detailed data from platforms to do its job, the ruling confirms that its information gathering tools have real force.

What the Companies Challenged

Under the Online Safety Act, Ofcom can require regulated services to provide information it needs to carry out its functions. The notices at the heart of these cases asked the platforms for information, and the companies objected on several grounds.

The claimants argued that the notices were an attempt to get around the Act's separate transparency regime, which has its own procedures for public reporting. They also said the information was not truly "required" by Ofcom, that the regulator had failed to carry out an impact assessment under section 7 of the Communications Act 2003, and that the demands were disproportionate.

TikTok added a further argument, alleging that Ofcom had effectively made up its mind in advance, a claim known in public law as predetermination.

How the Court Ruled

According to a summary from Blackstone Chambers, whose barristers acted for Ofcom, the court refused permission on four of the five grounds, finding them unarguable. Those were the arguments about circumventing the transparency regime, about whether the information was required, about the impact assessment and about predetermination.

The court did grant permission on the fifth ground, proportionality, which the companies framed under both section 100(4) of the Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. Having heard that argument in full, the judges rejected it.

The Burden Argument

The companies had said that complying with the notices would impose an extraordinary burden. The court was not persuaded. It found that the evidence offered in support of that claim lacked pertinent substance, meaning it did not show in concrete terms why the demands were excessive.

That finding is likely to be closely studied. Large platforms often argue that regulatory requests are costly and complex, and this judgment signals that such claims need specific, well evidenced detail to succeed.

Why the Ruling Matters

The Online Safety Act places wide ranging duties on online services to protect users, especially children, from illegal and harmful content. Ofcom's ability to collect accurate information is central to enforcing those duties, from checking risk assessments to investigating possible breaches.

A ruling against Ofcom could have slowed that work and invited further challenges to every significant request. Instead, the court has confirmed that the regulator has considerable room to decide what information it needs, provided it acts lawfully and proportionately.

The judgment is also significant beyond the United Kingdom. Governments in Europe and elsewhere are building similar regimes for online platforms, and courts there will watch how British judges treat the balance between regulatory reach and the burdens placed on companies.

What Comes Next

The ruling does not end every dispute between the platforms and Ofcom. A separate challenge by Meta, concerning the way fees and penalties are calculated by reference to worldwide revenue, is still pending before the courts.

The companies may also consider whether to seek permission to appeal. For now, however, the message from the High Court is clear: the information powers Parliament gave Ofcom will be enforced, and platforms that resist them will need strong evidence to do so. Court Magazine will follow any appeal and the outcome of the pending fee challenge.