Ofcom's legal team dismissed Meta's position as "outlandish", while a children's advocacy organisation warned that regulatory teeth matter. This week, Meta brought its dispute to the High Court in London seeking to reshape the way Ofcom determines online safety fees and the ceiling on fines, according to Courthouse News. Arguments stretched across a day and a half, concluding Wednesday evening. The crux involves whether Ofcom can base its calculations on total worldwide revenue rather than revenue tied to specific jurisdictions.
Under the Online Safety Act, Ofcom holds authority to impose fines reaching 10% of a company's qualifying worldwide revenue or £18m, selecting whichever sum is larger. The regulator also finances its operations through levies calculated from companies' revenue figures. Meta initiated this court action against Ofcom's methodology earlier in the year.
Meta's case
The technology company contends that Ofcom has stretched its statutory powers by adopting an overly expansive interpretation of what constitutes qualifying worldwide revenue. Additionally, Meta objects to Ofcom's approach when determining fines in situations where multiple services belonging to the same parent company face joint responsibility.
In filings submitted to the court, Monica Carss-Frisk, representing Meta's interests, characterised Ofcom's methodology as "troubling". She warned that such an approach risks placing "companies such as Meta bearing the vast majority of Ofcom's costs", despite the legislation encompassing numerous internet services operating throughout the UK.
Meta stated its willingness to work constructively alongside Ofcom. The company maintains that fees and penalties ought to correspond to the services actually regulated within the nations where they function. According to Meta's position, restricting calculations to the UK would still permit Ofcom to impose meaningful financial consequences.
Ofcom's reply
Ofcom rejected Meta's arguments, asserting that it "struck a careful balance" in its interpretation. The regulator emphasised that its rules establish the upper limit of potential fines rather than dictating actual penalty amounts. Ofcom's counsel branded Meta's questioning of the regulator's competence as "outlandish".
In a statement beyond the courtroom, an Ofcom representative pledged to uphold its reasoning and the decisions it has reached.
5Rights Foundation, an organisation focused on children's welfare, has secured the right to participate in the proceedings supporting Ofcom.
The Online Safety Act cannot be a paper tiger. Parliament intended it to provide a strong deterrent.
Leanda Barrington-Leach, executive director of 5Rights Foundation
What an expert said
Alexandros Antoniou, a senior lecturer specialising in media law at the University of Essex, suggested to Courthouse News that Meta's most expansive argument would face considerable obstacles in court.
Parliament gave Ofcom a long measuring tape.
Alexandros Antoniou, University of Essex
However, Antoniou acknowledged that Meta possesses a stronger foundation regarding how Ofcom specifies which revenue sources qualify for inclusion.
Meta has recently joined TikTok and X in launching a separate legal challenge concerning the scope of information Ofcom can request. Ofcom is simultaneously conducting an inquiry into Instagram Instants. The court is expected to deliver its judgment on the fees dispute in due course.
Source: The Next Web
