Meta, Tiktok and X will face a tougher battle resisting Ofcom’s demands for online safety data after the High Court ruled that tech giants must provide detailed evidence of compliance costs in order to challenge the regulator’s requests.

The judgment, handed down on Friday, strengthens Ofcom’s ability to demand information from social media platforms even before it has decided whether to pursue further regulatory action.

It follows an unsuccessful legal challenge by Meta, WhatsApp, X and Tiktok to notices requiring them to provide historical data on user activity, harmful content and moderation practices dating back to January 2024.

While the dismissal was revealed last week, the judgment sets out a significant hurdle for future challenges by refusing to allow companies to claim that information requests are excessive without demonstrating the additional work involved.

“A general assertion that less burdensome notices could have been issued without unduly detracting from their usefulness will not do”, the judges said.

Higher bar for legal challenges

The dispute centred on information notices issued by Ofcom in February under the Online Safety Act, requiring platforms to provide data on content moderation, user complaints, appeals and exposure to harmful material.

The companies argued that the demands exceeded Ofcom’s statutory powers, imposed disproportionate compliance costs and circumvented the Act’s separate transparency reporting regime.

But Justice Singh and Justice Collins Rice rejected those arguments, finding that Ofcom could gather information to inform future regulatory decisions without first identifying a specific investigation or proposed rule change.

The judges also found the companies had failed to demonstrate the additional resources required to comply with the notices, separate from costs they would incur under their existing obligations.

Their evidence “does not sufficiently identify the necessary baselines or differential resource impact”, the court said.

The ruling leaves the notices intact, although Ofcom must still ensure that future requests are proportionate to their intended purpose.

The decision marks the first judicial review testing the watchdog’s information-gathering powers under the Online Safety Act, which allows it to fine non-compliant companies up to £18m or 10 per cent of qualifying global annual turnover, whichever is higher.

Age checks adds to regulatory pressure

The ruling comes as tech firms face growing scrutiny over how they enforce Britain’s forthcoming ban on social media for under-16s.

Ofcom last week identified four methods of age verification it considers sufficiently reliable, including facial age estimation and banking-based checks.

The proposals have renewed debate over whether age verification should be handled by individual social media platforms or at the app-store and operating-system level.

Meta told that it supported a layered approach involving app stores, arguing that repeated checks across different services could create unnecessary burdens for users.

The social media giant added that it already uses facial age estimation, ID checks and artificial intelligence to identify teenagers who may have misrepresented their ages.

Ofcom’s latest assessment found that all eight app stores it examined relied on users declaring their own ages, with additional verification used only in limited circumstances.

While the regulator has acknowledged that app stores could play a greater role, social media companies would remain responsible for meeting their own legal obligations.

The High Court’s decision does not determine how those age checks should be implemented, but it reinforces Ofcom’s ability to demand evidence from platforms as it assesses their compliance.

Meta said last week it was disappointed by the ruling, arguing that information-gathering on this scale went beyond what was necessary or proportionate. Tiktok said it was reviewing the judgment.