Meta is suing Ofcom regarding the fee calculation method under the Online Safety Act.

      The initial invoices are set to be issued in September. Meta aims to change the basis prior to their arrival. According to the High Court, Meta has initiated a judicial review against Ofcom concerning the manner in which the regulator computes fees and penalties under the UK's Online Safety Act. The disagreement appears to be minor on the surface but is significant beneath. Ofcom's method charges platforms based on what it terms qualifying worldwide revenue, which refers to the global income associated with a regulated service rather than just the portion from the UK.

      Fines operate similarly and can amount to 10% of that worldwide figure. Meta consistently maintains, as reiterated outside of court, that any charges should reflect the country where the service is regulated.

      A Meta spokesperson stated, “We and others within the tech sector find Ofcom's decisions regarding the methodology for calculating fees and potential fines to be disproportionate. We believe that fees and penalties ought to correspond to the services regulated within their respective countries. This would still enable Ofcom to impose record fines within UK corporate history.”

      Ofcom responded that the framework was established in the legislation passed by Parliament and mentioned it had consulted comprehensively on its application. The regulator expressed disappointment that Meta is contesting the payment of fees and any future penalties calculated on this basis.

      Regarding the implications at stake, the fees are relatively small for Meta. Ofcom has indicated that the levy will range from 0.02% to 0.03% of qualifying worldwide revenue, with a £250 million revenue threshold for liability and a £10 million UK-revenue floor for exemption. For Meta, this generally translates to a few tens of millions of pounds annually based on a rough $165 billion revenue base.

      The larger concern is the potential penalties. The Online Safety Act permits Ofcom to impose fines on in-scope services of up to 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, similar to the multiplier used in GDPR. Based on Meta's 2025 projections, the theoretical upper limit would be around $16 billion. The distinction between using worldwide and UK-only revenue is crucial, as it could lead to either a damaging or a negligible remedy.

      Ofcom's attorney, Javan Herberg, informed the court that the regulator plans to send out the first batch of invoices in the third quarter of this year, likely in September. If Meta prevails, it may lead to refunds, hence the urgency: disputing the methodology after invoicing would complicate recovering funds already paid.

      Meta's challenge is procedural rather than constitutional; the company is not claiming that the Online Safety Act itself is illegal. Instead, it is arguing that Ofcom's interpretation of “qualifying worldwide revenue” exceeds Parliamentary intent and that the resulting computations are disproportionate according to public-law principles. This argument mirrors the proportionality issue that Meta is also pursuing in Brussels, where it has contended that the Commission’s interpretation of the Digital Markets Act is broader than the text supports.

      At this stage, the High Court will not assess the merits of the case. Thursday’s hearing focused on timing, refund processes, and the procedural aspects of the review. A substantial ruling is unlikely before autumn, at which point Ofcom will have already sent out the first invoices.

      If Ofcom succeeds, the methodology will persist and align the UK regime with the EU's GDPR and DSA by linking penalties to global revenue. Conversely, if Meta is successful, Ofcom will need to revise its approach; the implications will extend to TikTok, X, Snap, Pinterest, and other large platforms affected, none of which have publicly joined Meta's challenge but many of which are thought to share the same concerns.

      Meta has had a contentious relationship with British and European regulators for some time, having amassed over €2.5 billion in fines from the EU, accounting for more than half of all GDPR penalties issued in the region, most of which the company has appealed. Ofcom’s investigation into Telegram for CSAM is one of several ongoing inquiries under the Online Safety Act, along with Ofcom's March letters requesting evidence of further child safety improvements from Facebook, Instagram, Roblox, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube.

      This judicial review arrives at a time when the regime established by the Online Safety Act is transitioning from setup to enforcement. Ofcom has already imposed a £520,000 fine on 4chan in March and £1.05 million on AVS Group in December due to age verification failures. The issues raised by Meta regarding the revenue calculations will be exactly what future cases will hinge upon, aligning with long-standing criticisms of the Online Safety Act from civil-society organizations, which argue that the law's scope is excessively broad.

      By September, it will become clear whether Meta has secured a refund mechanism, a change in methodology, or simply a minor note in the initial invoice under the Online Safety Act.