Fines issued, but nobody outside of the UK has paid yet :)
The other interesting enforcement is leverageing payment processors, ISPs etc (see end of text)
{I've just put the 4chan response at the end, they are basiscally telling the UK regulator to bite them :) }
4chan (Anonymous Imageboard – US-based)
Fine:£20,000 issued in October 2025.
Reason: Failure to respond to Ofcom's legally binding information requests
regarding its illegal content risk assessment and qualifying worldwide revenue.
Additional Penalty: A daily fine of £100 was imposed until compliance,
potentially increasing the total significantly.
Despite being a US-based platform, 4chan is accessible in the UK and thus
falls under the Act's extra-territorial scope.
8579 LLC (US-based Adult Site Operator)
Fine: Largest penalty to date—amount not disclosed publicly but confirmed
as the highest under the Act (reported February 2026).
Reason: Failure to prevent children from accessing adult content.
Ongoing Penalty: £1,000 per day until compliance is achieved.
This case highlights that US-based companies are being actively targeted.
Ofcom's Enforcement Powers and Approach
Ofcom has adopted a proactive and escalating enforcement strategy,
especially for platforms that ignore regulatory requests.
Key Enforcement Tools:
Fines: Up to £18 million or 10% of global turnover, whichever is higher.
Daily Penalties: For ongoing non-compliance (e.g., £100–£1,000 per day).
Service Blocking: Power to seek court orders to block access to
non-compliant sites in the UK.
Business Disruption: Can compel payment processors, advertisers,
and ISPs to cut ties with non-compliant platforms.
No, 4chan will not pay the UK fine.
4chan has publicly refused to pay the £20,000 fine issued by Ofcom in October 2025 for non-compliance with the Online Safety Act. The company, represented by its lawyer Preston Byrne, has stated it will not comply, arguing that:
It is a US-based platform and not subject to UK law.
Compliance would violate First Amendment rights in the United States.
Ofcom cannot enforce the fine without US government cooperation, which is unlikely.
Additionally, in February 2026, 4chan's lawyer confirmed the platform will also refuse a larger expected fine of £520,000, calling the enforcement effort "unconstitutional."
While Ofcom can impose daily penalties (up to £100 per day) and potentially block 4chan in the UK, actual collection of the fine remains unenforceable as of now.
11 Mar 2026, 02:55 by hello_at_saraelsa_net_datwbtydy@simplelogin.co:
> Yes, it can be intimidating to have a nation-state threaten you. It
> can also be a politically-motivated decision with Imgur hoping for
> more providers to go down this route, resulting in political pressure
> against the government incentivizing it to back down. Such a strategy
> would be most effective with coordination between various major
> open-source projects.
>
> I would be surprised if you were able to find an exmaple of the U.K.
> successfully enforcing a fine against a foreign non-E.U. company with
> no physical exposure to the region, as opposed to merely threatening
> a company into compliance.
>
>> On Mar 10, 2026, at 22:24, drango@wts.slmail.me wrote:
>>
>> "Imgur does not have operations or assets in the UK, and it has explicitly stated that it does not operate in the UK to avoid compliance with UK laws, including the Online Safety Act."
>>
>> They were still threatened with fines by the UK government (ICO), and still blocked UK users via IP.
>>
>> I didn't use ChapGPT. The result was a summary of everything else I've read via a much better AI ;)
>>
>> For example, an operating system for a pocket calculator has simply changed its license to
>> ban Californian users.
>>
>> DB48X, an open-source calculator firmware project, has announced it will ban users from California starting January 1, 2027, due to California's new law requiring operating systems to collect and share user age data. This decision stems from the project's refusal to implement age verification, which it views as incompatible with its open-source principles and privacy values.
>>
>>
>>
>> MidnightBSD have put this similar wording in their terms:
>>
>> "Residents of any countries, states or territories that require age verification
>> for operating systems, are not authorized to use MidnightBSD. This list currently includes
>> Brazil, effective March 17, 2026, California, effective January 1, 2027, and
>> will include Colorado, Illinois and New York provided they pass their currently
>> proposed legislation. We urge users to write their representatives to get
>> these laws repealed or replaced."
>>
>> Clearly you can be impacted by these new laws if you are an entity in a non US country.
>>
>>> However, this is much the same, like I pointed out earlier, as some foreign state purporting to place an internationally-applicable ban on 2SLGBTQIA+ materials–while under its own laws the ban can certainly apply worldwide in theory, in practice, there would be no real enforcement mechanism.
>>>
>>
>> No, thats not the same. A foreing state can't blanket ban something worldwide, as the world is outside its jurisdiction. They can ban within their own country, or attempt to fine someone outside their own country for continuing to supply or distribute a product or service.
>>
>> Whether its enforceable wasn't the main point anyway. It was to rubbish this notion from Kevin et al that simply being in Canada is enough to avoid the law - it isn't plain and simple.
>>
>> Despite the numerous facts and historic evidence of their "notions" not being true they will still argue black is white I guess. The fact is, being in an entity in Canada will not prevent California pursuing a company distributing an OS if California decides they want to. Whether they will legally achieve a fine or an enforcement will be a legal test if it comes. But simply stating Openbsd is in Canada therefore it doesn't apply is just not true.
>>
>>
>>
>> 11 Mar 2026, 01:53 by hello_at_saraelsa_net_datwbtydy@simplelogin.co:
>>
>>> Well, yes and no. Protection mainly arises due to a lack of physical exposure to the claiming jurisdiction.
>>>
>>> In the case of Facebook and Apple, they maintain significant assets in the EU. Therefore, the EU is able to enforce fines even if they originated as a result of activity conducted abroad.
>>>
>>> In the case of OpenBSD, there's certainly nothing preventing California or the EU from attempting to issue a fine against it. However, it would be rather difficult to enforce this fine since (I assume) OpenBSD does not maintain any significant assets in the U.S./EU that these jurisdictions could attempt to come after.
>>>
>>> For some people/corporations, the risk of an attempted foreign fine ia something they're so unwilling to take that they simply block users from that jurisdiction so that the jurisdiction itself does not attempt to issue fines. This is what Imgur did. However, ultimately, if Imgur did not maintain any assets in the U.K., it would be quite difficult for the U.K. to attempt to enforce a fine against Imgur.
>>>
>>> I am of the opinion that if a foreign nation is interested in preventing its people from accessing certain services, that's its own problem and it can work out if it wants to block websites associated with the service or something else. OpenBSD as a Canadian project with presumably no/minimal exposure to the U.S. shouldn't cooperate with such power grabs.
>>>
>>> ChatGPT is not a reliable source of law. With that said, the response given you by ChatGPT appears to be mostly correct in accordance with California law. However, this is much the same, like I pointed out earlier, as some foreign state purporting to place an internationally-applicable ban on 2SLGBTQIA+ materials–while under its own laws the ban can certainly apply worldwide in theory, in practice, there would be no real enforcement mechanism.
>>>
>>>> On Mar 10, 2026, at 21:37, drango@wts.slmail.me wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Doubt it. Where an entity is domiciled or incorporated doesn't protect you.
>>>> 3 pieces of information.
>>>>
>>>> 1) The EU regularly fines US companies (much to the annoyance of the US administration)
>>>> The company "operates" globally, and services EU customers. However the company like Facebook or Apple being fined is American. The EU is in er... the EU :)
>>>>
>>>> 2) The UK government has a similar Age Verifcation law. They tried to force Imgur to apply it,
>>>> or be fined. Imgur said they would not comply, and simply blocked UK users from accessing
>>>> their platform. See here:
>>>> https://help.imgur.com/hc/en-us/articles/41592665292443-Imgur-access-in-the-United-Kingdom
>>>> UK law. US company. Being in the US did not allow them to evade UK law.
>>>>
>>>> 3) I asked the AI: "does the California age verification law apply to companies or entities outside the US"
>>>>
>>>> Answer:
>>>>
>>>> The California age verification law, specifically AB 1043 (Digital Age Assurance Act), applies to any entity that makes a digital service available to California residents, regardless of where the company is headquartered. This means companies or entities outside the U.S. are subject to the law if their services are accessible to users in California.
>>>>
>>>> Key points:
>>>>
>>>> The law targets digital services (including apps, operating systems, and online platforms) used by California residents.
>>>> Jurisdiction is based on user location, not company location. If a company offers services to users in California, it must comply with the law's age verification requirements.
>>>> The law does not require photo IDs or facial recognition—users can self-report their age during device or account setup.
>>>> While the law is enforced by California's Attorney General, its reach extends globally due to the "California effect," where companies often apply compliance standards nationwide or worldwide to avoid managing multiple systems.
>>>> However, enforcement against foreign entities may be challenging, and some experts suggest companies might respond by blocking California IP addresses or adding disclaimers like "Not for use in California" to avoid liability.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> As many have pointed out, with varying levels of eloquence, I would
>>>>>> imagine that being incorporated in Canada might be of help here, in a
>>>>>> similar fashion to the issue of exporting encryption software, which
>>>>>> is illegal in the US, but not in Canada.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also in what way does the bill violate the constitution? Not
>>>>>> disagreeing, just wanting to meet you where you are here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 9:45 AM Gabe Bauer <gabeb1277@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I assume that somebody has likely already informed Theo about the new operating system level age verification law that takes effect in California starting January 1st of next year?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are also similar efforts making their way through Colorado and New York at the moment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most pressingly, a bill with hefty fines for non compliance (about 9.6 million USD), which is enough to completely sink the OpenBSD Foundation and project, and it takes effect starting thirteen days from now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are there any proposed solutions to this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe the Brazilian law is more stringent on what is required to comply with the measure, including, correct me if I am wrong, actual government ID submission, which is likely not feasible for a default OpenBSD installation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does the OpenBSD project plan to implement the necessary measures to comply with these laws, or will they take the route of MidnightBSD, by simply stipulating in the license that people in these areas are not allowed to use the software?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is VERY important to me as I am sure it is to you, too, as I am sure all of us would like to see projects like this one to continue to exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am fairly certain that the California law likely violates the US constitution, but may go unchallenged.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am less certain about the constitutionality of the Brazilian law within its own borders.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hope this project does not suffer an unkind fate. Thank you for your attention to this matter!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Aaron Mason - Programmer, open source addict
>>>>>> I've taken my software vows - for beta or for worse
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment