What the Ofcom Information-Notice Ruling Actually Decides, and What It Leaves Open

SeaPRwire – Five grounds went into the Divisional Court. Four of them never reached a hearing on their merits. That procedural detail is the part of the 30 October judgment worth understanding first, because it decides how much of the platforms’ argument was actually tested and how much was simply refused at the gate.

Under the Online Safety Act 2023, section 100 lets Ofcom require regulated services to hand over information the regulator needs to carry out its functions. Meta and WhatsApp, X and TikTok each received notices and each brought judicial review. The judgment, from Lord Justice Singh and Mrs Justice Collins Rice, is reported as [2026] EWHC 2779 (Admin), and it is the first judicial examination of that power.

The four grounds that failed at the permission stage were the argument that the notices circumvented the Act’s separate transparency regime, the argument that the information was not genuinely “required,” the argument that Ofcom had skipped an impact assessment under section 7 of the Communications Act 2003, and, for TikTok alone, predetermination. Permission was refused because the court considered those grounds unarguable, which is a lower bar than being wrong: a ground refused permission does not get argued out in open court, and the reasoning behind the refusal is correspondingly thin.

Proportionality survived that filter. The companies framed it under both section 100(4) and the European Convention on Human Rights, the court granted permission, heard it in full, and rejected it. So of five complaints, exactly one was examined on the evidence, and it lost.

The finding inside that single ground is where the judgment will be cited. The platforms said compliance would impose an extraordinary burden. The court found the evidence offered in support lacked “pertinent substance,” meaning it did not show in concrete terms why the demands were excessive. Read that as a statement about the quality of the record rather than about the size of the burden: the court did not conclude the burden was small, it concluded the platforms had not demonstrated it.

For anyone advising a regulated service on how to resist a section 100 notice, that is the operative paragraph. Expense and complexity are not self-proving. A notice running to hundreds of pages may well cost a great deal to answer; a court will want the costed version, itemised against the specific requests, before it weighs that cost against the regulator’s need. The judgment rewards a company that can produce engineering time estimates, headcount allocations and per-request breakdowns, and penalises one that asserts scale.

What the ruling does not establish is more extensive than what it does. It says nothing about whether the information Ofcom sought was the information it should have sought, only that its decision on that question survives a proportionality review on the record before the court. It says nothing about how Ofcom uses the material, or what standard applies when the data becomes the basis of a breach investigation. Those questions remain where they were.

The transparency argument deserves a note, because it is the one with the widest potential reach. The Act gives Ofcom a separate transparency regime with its own procedures for public reporting, and the companies argued that the information notices were an attempt to route around it. The court found that unarguable. If that conclusion holds through any appeal, the practical effect is that Ofcom can gather material for its own purposes without triggering the disclosure obligations attached to the transparency route, and the two channels stay legally distinct.

Two disputes sit outside this judgment. Meta’s separate challenge to the way fees and penalties are calculated by reference to worldwide revenue is still before the courts, and it addresses a different power: not what Ofcom may ask for, but what it may charge. The platforms may also seek permission to appeal the 30 October decision, which would put the proportionality finding in front of the Court of Appeal and test whether the evidential threshold was set correctly.

The wider read-across is a matter of institutional design rather than of this case. Section 100 is a demand power exercised without prior judicial authorisation. A regulator decides what it needs, issues a notice, and the company either complies or litigates after the fact, which is why the permission stage matters so much: the four grounds that never got heard are the four arguments a regulated service would most want to make. Jurisdictions drafting equivalent regimes will look at how little of the challenge survived, and at how narrow the surviving ground turned out to be.

One asymmetry is worth naming. Because four grounds were refused permission, the court’s reasoning on them exists mainly as a refusal rather than as a reasoned judgment, and a refusal is harder to appeal and harder to rely on in the next case. The proportionality finding rests on a full hearing and a developed record, which makes it the part later litigants can actually use. That is an odd result for a first test of a statutory power: the narrowest ground produced the most durable holding.

What to watch is unglamorous. Whether an appeal is filed. Whether the pending fee challenge produces a different result on a power the court has not yet construed. Whether the data collected under these notices shows up in enforcement action, which is the only test of whether the information was worth demanding. And whether the next company served with a section 100 notice answers it, or spends the effort to build the costed record that this judgment says is required to resist one.

The notice power is not self-executing either. What a platform must produce, in what format and by what date are set by the notice itself, and nothing in this judgment constrains how broadly the next one may be drawn. A ruling that upholds one set of demands says little about the scope of the following set.

The ruling tells regulators their information powers will be enforced and tells companies what kind of evidence it takes to push back. It does not tell anyone whether the requests were well judged, and the court was not asked to answer that.

source https://newsroom.seaprwire.com/press-releases/policy-analysis/what-the-ofcom-information-notice-ruling-actually-decides-and-what-it-leaves-open/