US Court Throws Out 4chan's Suit Against Britain's Ofcom, but Offshore Online Safety Fines Still Go Unpaid

In September 2026 a federal judge in Washington threw out a lawsuit that two American websites, 4chan and Kiwi Farms, had brought against Britain’s online safety regulator. The ruling settled one question: a US court won’t stop a foreign regulator from fining American sites. It left another open: whether anyone can make them pay.

Between April 2025 and June 2026, Britain’s online safety regulator, Ofcom, fined nine providers based outside the UK under the Online Safety Act. The fines had a face value of £6.1 million, before daily penalties. When asked under freedom of information rules how much had been paid, Ofcom withheld the figure.

That gap is the story of the Act’s first enforcement year. Ofcom can investigate, fine and threaten to block. Getting money out of a company with no assets or staff in Britain is a different matter.

The 4chan case

The test case is 4chan, the US-based message board. Ofcom opened an investigation in June 2025. In October 2025 it issued its first-ever fine under the Act, £20,000 plus daily penalties, for ignoring requests for information. In March 2026 it fined the site again, £520,000 in all: £450,000 for not having age checks to keep children away from pornography, £50,000 for failing to assess the risk of illegal content and £20,000 over its terms of service, each with daily penalties. Reports in July said 4chan still hadn’t paid.

4chan and Kiwi Farms, another US site, had sued Ofcom in a federal court in Washington in August 2025, arguing British enforcement violated their free speech rights. In September 2026 the judge dismissed the case. He held that Ofcom, as a foreign state body, is immune from suit under US law, and didn’t rule on the First Amendment questions. He wrote that the sites were trying to use US courts as a sword against Ofcom rather than as a shield.

The blocking power, first try

The Act’s ultimate weapon is the business disruption order: a court order requiring internet providers, payment firms or advertisers to cut off a non-compliant service in the UK. Its first test didn’t go well.

In May 2026 Ofcom fined an online suicide forum run from the US £950,000 and said it was preparing to ask a court to have UK internet providers block it. In July Ofcom dropped the plan. The operator had tightened its own block on UK users, and the legal test for a blocking order wasn’t met. Ofcom also pointed out that the Act doesn’t let it seek a disruption order just because a fine is unpaid. The fine, due in June, hasn’t been paid. Ofcom said it would review its powers.

Fines that do land

Ofcom does better with companies that want to stay in the British market. By March 2026 it had issued 16 fines against six companies, worth nearly £4 million. The largest single fine so far, £1.35 million plus £50,000, went to a porn company in February 2026 for missing age checks. In December 2025 it fined AVS Group, operator of 18 adult sites, £1 million plus £50,000. On 6 October 2026 it opened an investigation into Meta’s Instagram.

The American response

Washington has treated foreign online safety laws as censorship. A State Department official said in early 2026 that judgments under laws like the Online Safety Act shouldn’t be enforced in the US. In August 2026 a Republican congressman introduced the GRANITE Act, which would bar US courts from enforcing foreign censorship judgments. It hasn’t moved. A state version in Wyoming passed the state House in February and stalled in the Senate.

The pattern

Europe’s Digital Services Act faces the same problem on a bigger scale, though its targets, the largest platforms, have European offices and revenue to protect. Australia’s under-16 ban relies on large platforms too. Every country regulating online content runs into the same limit: a law works on companies that want to do business in the country, and much less on those that don’t.

For sites that don’t care about the British market, Ofcom’s realistic options are the ones it found hard to use: blocking and cutting off payments. Its review of those powers is the next thing to watch.