“Dear Ofcom, your case is legally void and will make excellent hamster bedding”*

In a courthouse in Washington D.C., a landmark transatlantic legal battle is unfolding that could reshape how nations regulate online content across borders and determine the future of the UK’s Online Safety Act. Two US-based online platforms have taken the unprecedented step of suing the United Kingdom's communications regulator, Ofcom. The case sits at the intersection of sovereign immunity, constitutional rights, and the fundamental question of how far a nation can push its regulatory power in the name of online safety.

The Players

• 4chan Community Support LLC - A Delaware-based imageboard with over 20 million monthly visitors worldwide, approximately 1.4 million of whom are UK-based.
• Kiwi Farms (Lolcow LLC) - A West Virginia-based internet culture discussion forum that initially attempted to resolve the dispute by blocking UK users.
• Ofcom - The UK's independent communications regulator administering the Online Safety Act 2023, enacted to protect UK internet users from harmful online content.

From Emails to Lawsuits

The confrontation began in March 2025, when Ofcom determined that 4chan fell within the Online Safety Act's scope due to its significant UK user base (7% of visitors). The escalation timeline:

1. March-April 2025: Ofcom sent "advisory letters" and "legally binding information notices" demanding compliance information.
2. August 2025: After 4chan failed to respond, Ofcom issued a Provisional Decision Notice threatening £20,000 in fines plus £100 daily penalties.
3. 27 August 2025: 4chan and Kiwi Farms filed a federal lawsuit in Washington D.C. See our previous article discussing the run up to the federal lawsuit and its implications here.
4. 13 October 2025: Ofcom issued a Confirmation Decision formally imposing penalties. See our previous article discussing the Confirmation Decision here.
5. 1 December 2025: Ofcom moved to dismiss the case.
6. 29 December 2025: 4chan and Kiwi Farms filed their opposition to Ofcom's motion to dismiss.
7. 16 January 2026: Ofcom filed a brief reply in support of its motion.

The Legal Battleground

4chan's Opening Grounds

1. Improper Service: Ofcom’s communications were sent via email, bypassing the US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. Without valid service, the orders have no legal effect in the US.
2. Constitutional Violations: The Online Safety Act allegedly violates the First Amendment (free speech), Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches), and Fifth Amendment (due process).
3. Section 230 Immunity: The Communications Decency Act gives immunity to platforms from liability for user-generated content—Ofcom's demands would treat them as "publishers" in violation of this protection.
4. Commercial Activity Exception: Ofcom charges platforms fees, which the plaintiffs argue constitutes "commercial activity" stripping sovereign immunity under the FSIA.

Ofcom Hits Back

Ofcom's motion to dismiss argues:

1. Sovereign Immunity: Ofcom is a UK government entity entitled to immunity under the FSIA-the same way the FCC could not be sued in London over regulatory disputes.
2. Regulatory, Not Commercial: Ofcom's activities are government regulation, not commercial activity-so the FSIA's commercial exception doesn't apply.
3. UK Nexus: 4chan has 1.4 million UK users monthly and actively advertises this to advertisers, clearly meeting the OSA's jurisdictional threshold.
4. Forum Non-Conveniens: The UK is the proper forum, as the Online Safety Act provides judicial review through the UK Upper Tribunal.
5. International Comity: Based on the principle of mutual respect between nations' legal systems, US courts should defer to Ofcom's ongoing UK proceedings and allow the UK to handle this regulatory matter through its own courts.
6. Kiwi Farms Lacks Standing: After Kiwi Farms geo-blocked UK users, Ofcom suspended its inquiry and has taken no formal enforcement action against them.

The Rebuttal

In their opposition, 4chan and Kiwi Farms argue that even if Ofcom qualifies as a foreign state entity, the commercial activity exception strips its immunity because content moderation is an activity only private parties can lawfully perform in the US. Crucially, they maintain that no UK court can determine whether Ofcom's orders have legal effect in the United States: it is a question only US courts can resolve.

Ofcom's Final Word (For Now)

Ofcom filed a reply brief reiterating its position. Ofcom argues that the plaintiffs forfeited any challenge to Ofcom's status as a foreign state entity by failing to meaningfully respond to their detailed analysis. Ofcom further contends that its regulatory activities are sovereign in nature regardless of any US constitutional provisions, and that comparisons to private industry groups like GARM are inapt because Ofcom investigates and sanctions violations-a core government function. Ofcom requests dismissal with prejudice.

What's at Stake

• Extraterritorial Enforcement: Tests whether foreign regulators can compel US platforms to comply with foreign content laws-potentially setting precedent for global regulatory reach.
• First Amendment vs. Online Safety: Pits American free speech protections against UK content moderation requirements.
• Cross-Border Enforcement Challenges: Highlights the difficulty of enforcing online safety laws against non-compliant foreign platforms.
• Diplomatic Dimensions: The case has added strain to the US-UK special relationship, with the dispute reportedly escalating beyond the courtroom into diplomatic channels. What began as a regulatory matter has become a point of friction between the two governments, raising broader questions about how allied nations navigate competing approaches to internet governance.

Watch This Space

The case is pending before the US District Court for the District of Columbia, awaiting a ruling on Ofcom's motion to dismiss. Notably, just three days after filing its motion, Ofcom informed 4chan it was "expanding the scope" of its investigation to include age verification-signalling no intention to back down.

Whatever the outcome, the 4chan v. Ofcom case has already become a landmark moment in the global debate over who governs the internet and whether borders still mean anything in cyberspace.

*The title of this article comes from 4chan's counsel's response to Ofcom's enforcement action. When Ofcom issued its Confirmation Decision imposing penalties, 4chan's legal team replied: 'Thank you for the several dozen pages of, in America, legally void correspondence. It will make excellent bedding for my pet hamster.'