Yes, that 4chan, the infamous online message board known for countless right-wing, racist, and just creepy fuckery over the last 22 years. It will not pay the £20,000 fine which UK communications regulator Ofcom slapped on it. This punishment comes as a result of 4chan’s non-compliance with two information requests from the platform about its operations and anti-hate policies. The penalty adds daily penalties for every day the platform continues to not comply.
Ofcom has served a provisional notice of contravention to 4chan. This announcement is an important development in the continued oversight and skepticism of the value of online safety regulations. The forum has recurrently anchored itself to the most misogynistic campaigns and conspiracy theories. This calls into question whether it is really serious about user safety and whether it follows regulatory requirements.
Preston Byrne, the managing partner at the law Byrne & Storm, made the case that 4chan is acting legally under U.S. law. … He reiterated on the Joe Rogan Experience that the platform wouldn’t pay foreign penalties. “4chan has broken no laws in the United States – my client will not pay any penalty,” he asserted. He went on to explain how Ofcom’s notices impose no legal obligations within US jurisdiction.
Byrne’s company, CTC, said that they intend to take action immediately in federal court in the US. They seek to protect US law principles that would generally never allow foreign penal fines or censorship codes. “Under settled principles of US law, American courts will not enforce foreign penal fines or censorship codes,” Byrne noted.
The implications of 4chan’s position extend well beyond this one case, especially in light of the current pushback around the Online Safety Act. Advocates of free speech are sounding the alarm over the Act’s likely violation of the First Amendment. This cohort describes a number of American politicians and members of the Trump administration. They claim this would set a dangerous precedent as foreign regulations might seek to limit the operational freedoms of US tech companies.
Emma Drake, a partner at Bird and Bird whose practice focuses on online safety and privacy. She emphasized how difficult it is to regulate offshore providers such as 4chan. “Enforcing against an offshore provider is tricky,” she stated, highlighting the challenges faced by regulators in a global digital landscape.
4chan’s response to the investigation Ofcom has published a short brief introduction to the ongoing investigation. It’s anyone’s guess how the independent regulatory agency would respond if 4chan manages to beat the fine in US courts. Andrew Ferguson, an expert in online law, pointed out that foreign governments aiming to limit free expression or compromise data security might inadvertently push companies toward uniform compliance policies across different jurisdictions.
The transatlantic legal tussle could set a new precedent for bringing such joint cross-border cases in the future. At the same time, regulators across the globe are increasing their oversight of digital platforms. 4chan seems to be preparing for an eventual court battle in the United States. It sheds light on the increasingly fraught antagonism between regulatory intentions being pursued overseas and domestic legal doctrines rooted in free speech and corporate governance.