A lawsuit was filed in a the US district court of Columbia by 4Chan arguing that they are under no obligation to pay the UK age verification fines.
The UK government has been actively trying to enforce its mass government censorship and surveillance efforts across the internet thanks to the passage of the Online Safety Act. This through so-called “age verification” requirements. In a nutshell, users are required to fork over vast swaths of personal information just to be permitted to continue to use the open internet. The technology itself is notoriously insecure with numerous instances of data breaches and leaks. They are also widely known for also being largely ineffective thanks to there being numerous ways to circumvent those systems.
While the UK’s surveillance and censorship program has been far more successful at getting large platforms and services to bend at the knee than they should have been, it isn’t as though the rollout process has been devoid of resistance. For instance, Wikipedia, a large website that apparently actually cares about the well being of their users, issued a legal challenge against the age verification law. Sadly, the UK court ruled against Wikipedia, effectively saying that the UK government has every right to endanger their citizens. The courts only left the door open to challenge whatever classification the UK regulator, Ofcom, decides in terms of classification, but that’s about it.
Another website that apparently cares about their users is, curiously enough, 4Chan. After the UK government got the largest services and platforms to bend the knee, the UK government then started going after gradually smaller websites in a massive shakedown bid to do what they order. One of those sites they targeted for an “investigation” was 4Chan. The anonymous message board, for reasons that should be obvious, decided against demanding vast swaths of personal information from their users. Part of the reasoning is the fact that they are a US-based company and, they argued repeatedly, allows them to not be subject to UK laws.
In response, the UK ruled that the American based website violated UK laws and ordered them to not only pay fines, but also pay further fines for each day the American website violates UK laws. Yes, it is as stupid as it sounds. 4Chan responded to those fines pointing out that they aren’t subject to UK laws and have no reason to believe that they should pay those fines. The UK government was contemplating how they should respond to this including the possibility of ordering UK ISPs to block the site in question. 4Chan, for their part, said that they would be turning to the American courts to bolster their legal defence of not being required to pay those fines.
Today, we are learning that they did just that. According to 404Media, a lawsuit was filed in the district of Columbia challenging the fines:
4chan and Kiwi Farms sued the United Kingdom’s Office of Communications (Ofcom) over its age verification law in U.S. federal court Wednesday, fulfilling a promise it announced on August 23. In the lawsuit, 4chan and Kiwi Farms claim that threats and fines they have received from Ofcom “constitute foreign judgments that would restrict speech under U.S. law.”
Both entities say in the lawsuit that they are wholly based in the U.S. and that they do not have any operations in the United Kingdom and are therefore not subject to local laws. Ofcom’s attempts to fine and block 4chan and Kiwi Farms, and the lawsuit against Ofcom, highlight the messiness involved with trying to restrict access to specific websites or to force companies to comply with age verification laws.
The lawsuit calls Ofcom an “industry-funded global censorship bureau.”
“Ofcom’s ambitions are to regulate Internet communications for the entire world, regardless of where these websites are based or whether they have any connection to the UK,” the lawsuit states. “On its website, Ofcom states that ‘over 100,000 online services are likely to be in scope of the Online Safety Act—from the largest social media platforms to the smallest community forum.’”
The lawsuit itself was posted to Document Cloud, so you can read the lawsuit yourself. The lawsuit says, in part, the following:
117. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
118. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between 4chan and Ofcom under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 USCS § 2201.
119. Ofcom purported to effectuate legal process on 4chan through emails transmitted to 4chan’s corporate services company.
120. That entity is not authorized to accept service on behalf of 4chan.
121. Specifically, Ofcom emailed to 4chan’s corporate services vendor a “legally binding information notice” on April 14, 2025, a “failure to respond to information notice letter” on April 30, 2025, a letter confirming Ofcom would be opening an investigation on June 9, 2025, a “final legal notice” on June 16, 2025, a “preliminary contravention email” on July 9, 2025, and a “provisional decision notice” on August 12, 2025.
122. None of these actions constitutes valid service under the US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, United States law or any other proper international legal process.
123. Ofcom’s improper service has caused 4chan to incur legal expenses, face threats of substantial fines and potential imprisonment as well as other sanctions.
124. 4chan has no adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against defendant and grant the following relief:
a. A declaration that Ofcom’s attempts to serve process on the Plaintiffs were improper and invalid;
b. A permanent injunction prohibiting Ofcom from issuing any further orders or demands to the Plaintiffs without proper service through the US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty or other proper international legal process;
c. A declaration that Ofcom’s orders and demands are unenforceable in the United States as inconsistent with the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the SPEECH Act, the Communications Decency Act, and U.S. public policy;
d. A permanent injunction prohibiting Ofcom from enforcing or attempting to enforce the Online Safety Act against the Plaintiffs in the United States; and
e. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
It’ll be interesting to see where this one goes – this especially in light of all the efforts in the US to push similar surveillance and censorship laws. Perhaps the optimistic side of things is knowing that there are a few out there who are willing to fight these government overreach efforts.
Drew Wilson on Mastodon, Twitter and Facebook.
Discover more from Freezenet.ca
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
