As 4chan mocks UK regulators, will Ofcom turn to its 'last resort'?

Ofcom appears to be facing a major enforcement challenge. Despite issuing £3 million in fines under the Online Safety Act, the regulator has recovered just £55,000.

With controversial platforms like 4chan now openly mocking the financial threats, Ofcom is being pushed toward its “option of last resort.” If deployed, these measures could test the UK’s ability to control the internet.

Ofcom’s powers

The Online Safety Act forces Ofcom to follow a strict statutory escalation process. When a website ignores corrective demands — like failing to impose age assurance measures — the regulator can issue progressively steeper fines.

If those fail to achieve compliance, Ofcom is left with its business disruption measures (BDM). These allow the regulator to order payment providers and advertisers to withdraw services, or force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block a site entirely via an Access Request Order (ARO).

To date, Ofcom has avoided these measures, with a spokesperson acknowledging that their use would represent a “significant regulatory intervention.” However, even if they are introduced, their impact may not be as straightforward as the regulator likely hopes.

The complicated business of BDM

Ofcom must secure a court order to impose business disruption measures which inevitably introduces uncertainty.

Fred Allen, Senior Associate at Kingsley Napley, told TechRadar that courts are likely to scrutinize whether a block is truly necessary or if a "less intrusive measure" could achieve the same goal.

He added that while the courts will “give weight to the opinion of an expert regulator” it will nonetheless "scrutinise carefully measures that restrict rights and freedoms.”

There is also the matter of commercial interests. Under the Online Safety Act, the entities targeted — including ISPs, advertisers, and payment platforms — can contest a ruling.

While it seems unlikely that a national broadband provider will head to court to defend people's right to access a controversial site like 4chan, the potential for protracted legal battles and rising costs may explain why Ofcom has been hesitant to move beyond financial penalties. However, there are other hurdles for Ofcom to consider.

The reality of website blocks

Attempting to block websites is also likely to cause the regulator headaches. Websites often rely on shared infrastructure and aggressive blocking can affect sites and services that aren’t involved.

Italy’s recent "Piracy Shield" initiative serves as a cautionary tale. Designed to block illegal sports streams in real-time, the system mistakenly took down legitimate services for hours.

Because a single IP address can be associated with hundreds of innocent websites, and shared Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) mean many services share the same infrastructure, singling out one site without affecting others requires more advanced blocking techniques like deep packet inspection (DPI).

The adoption of VPNs could also undermine any website blocks that are enforced. Andrew Kernahan, Head of Public Affairs at the Internet Service Providers’ Association (ISPA), stressed that blocking a website should be the regulator’s “last resort” and does not represent a “silver bullet.”

He also told TechRadar that while the “use of VPNs and encrypted traffic can undermine its efficacy, not all users are familiar with VPNs.”

Nevertheless, following website blocks, Ofcom and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) would likely face a difficult choice. Rather than primarily being concerned with VPN use among children — as they are currently — the regulator would have to consider the impact of VPN use by the broader adult population.

Ofcom’s stance

Ofcom maintains that “if there is an ongoing breach of safety duties and if it is appropriate and proportionate for preventing significant harm to people in the UK, Ofcom can apply to a court for an order which would restrict or block access to a website.”

A spokesperson for the regulator added that it will “not hesitate” to use the powers, though acknowledged it would be significant “due to the impacts it has on the availability of services and information online for people in the UK.”

Regarding the low recovery of fines, the regulator is eager to stress that many of the deadlines to retrieve the funds have not yet passed and is expecting more to be received.

What’s next for the Online Safety Act?

Ultimately, the next phase of enforcing the Act is likely to be just as complex as those that have gone before it. If the regulator ramps up its enforcement and its "last resort" still hits technical limitations, it could force a dramatic rethink of how the UK handles VPN access and encrypted traffic. With that, digital privacy and access to information could be put at risk.

For the time being, Preston Byrne — the lawyer representing 4chan— remains unmoved by the escalating penalties. Last week, the platform responded to a new £520,000 fine notice by sending Ofcom an AI-generated image of a giant hamster.

In an email to TechRadar, Byrne made his stance clear: “If Ofcom wants to censor British citizens, it has that power,” adding that “my client's only regulator here is the First Amendment.”

“Ofcom's own data suggests that 1.4 million unique monthly UK users access 4chan's American servers every month. The UK free speech movement could certainly use 1.4 million new activists, particularly if those activists are 4chan users,” he said.