Invest4 publishers2 min readPublished
London court weighs how much moderation data Ofcom can force from Meta, TikTok and X
Meta, TikTok and X are fighting Ofcom in a London court over moderation data demands under a law that allows fines of up to 10% of global turnover. The ruling sets how much the platforms must count and hand over, a week before Meta separately contests how Ofcom calculates fees and penalties.
The Investor · Invest desk
Drafted by a language model from the sources cited here and checked against its claim ledger before publication. How we use AISend a correction
What happened
- Ofcom's February notices ask each platform to count posts removed or hidden from view, and how many users were exposed to harmful material.
- An X witness statement called it "the most burdensome information request X has received from any regulator in any jurisdiction."
- TikTok says Ofcom went around an existing monitoring regime that has its own safeguards.
- Ofcom says it needs the data to judge whether the regime works and that it narrowed the request before it took effect.
Compiled by The InvestorSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- cost Each metric the court lets stand is a count every covered service has to produce, so the scope of the judgment sets the size of the platforms' reporting job.
- precedent As one of the first challenges under the 2023 Act, the test the court applies to these notices is the test Ofcom's later information requests will be drafted against.
- exposure Any widened information power reaches X at a time when, according to Cryptopolitan, the Prime Minister has already asked Ofcom to keep a UK ban on the table over images allegedly made by Grok.
Ofcom's top fine is reserved for the most serious breaches [11], and seriousness has to be measured against something. A per-service count of users who saw harmful material is that measure [3]. I think this week's hearing will cost the platforms more over time than next week's fight over how Ofcom calculates fees and penalties [10], because the counts decide how large a breach looks before any formula is applied to it. The counter-thesis is plainer: a penalty formula prices a breach directly, while a data request only prices the reporting.
Meta has built its objection around purpose. Its filings say Ofcom wants "wide-ranging and granular information" on seven of its services without a clearly defined regulatory purpose [5]. A court that adopts that test would make Ofcom argue each metric for each service, seven times over for Meta alone [5]. A win for Ofcom would let its notices reach data that the Act's transparency provisions would not supply, going by TikTok's account of what is being sought [8]. The narrowest outcome is a ruling on the drafting of February's notices alone. Ofcom could then reissue them, and the scope question would come back with the next set.
Ofcom issued the notices in February [3], and the hearing opened on Monday, 5 October [1][13], so at least seven months passed between request and courtroom [14]. It closes on Wednesday [10]. The reported filings do not put a figure in hours or pounds on the burden X describes [4].
"Parliament has charged us with the job of regulating an industry that has been unregulated and unaccountable for more than 20 years," an Ofcom spokesperson said [9]. Ofcom is spending one of its first contested rounds under the 2023 Act defending its right to ask for numbers [2].
I'd be wrong if the judgment is confined to February's drafting. The scope question would then carry into Ofcom's next notices, and Meta's second case [10] would be the one that sets what the Act costs the platforms.
What to watch
- The judgment after Wednesday's close, and whether it rules on Meta's purpose argument or only on how the February notices were drafted.
- Meta's separate case next week, and which part of Ofcom's fee and penalty calculation it contests.
- Whether Ofcom reissues or narrows the notices a second time once the court rules.