The Online Safety Act’s Toothless Threat: Why Blocking Platforms is a Bluff

In the world of platform monetization, the only metric that matters is the cost of doing business. For the UK's communications regulator, Ofcom, that cost is currently looking like a rounding error.

As I've often argued, the effectiveness of any platform regulation isn't found in the size of the fine, but in the ability to actually collect it. As The Register first reported, Ofcom is discovering that issuing penalties under the Online Safety Act (OSA) is far simpler than securing the cash. Suzanne Cater, Ofcom's director of enforcement, recently admitted to the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee that the majority of fines issued under the OSA remain unpaid.

Let's look at the numbers. Ofcom has slapped 11 service providers with fines totaling more than £7 million ($9.4 million). While the regulator refuses to specify exactly how many of those payments are outstanding, the admission that most are unpaid is a glaring red flag. The largest of these, a £1.4 million ($1.88 million) penalty against 8579 LLC in February, highlights a systemic failure: the regulator is chasing debt that may never materialize.

Ofcom's defense is that they are primarily targeting smaller companies in the pornography industry and that things will improve as they move toward larger targets. Oliver Griffiths, group director at Ofcom, told peers that difficulties in collection should be less pronounced when fining bigger companies. This is a flawed premise. If a company has no UK assets, Griffiths admitted that pursuing debt is a difficult process.

This leads us to the 'nuclear option': business disruption powers. Ofcom can ask a court to restrict UK access to a site—a power it first used in May against an unnamed suicide forum that had been fined £950,000 ($1.2 million). But there is a massive catch. As The Register reports, these disruption measures cannot be used solely to recover unpaid fines; they require continuing noncompliance with the OSA.

This creates a perverse incentive structure. Platforms can comply just enough to avoid being blocked from the UK market while simply ignoring the fines. In effect, the 'nuclear option' is a bluff. If the penalty for non-payment isn't the loss of market access, then the fine isn't a deterrent—it's an optional suggestion.

Ofcom insists it is 'showing its teeth,' citing 40 formal investigations and six active enforcement programs involving giants like TikTok, X, and Telegram. But activity is not the same as impact. Even Griffiths admitted he was 'underwhelmed' by the OSA's effect on online safety thus far. This sentiment is echoed by Dame Rachel de Souza, the Children's Commissioner for England, who told peers that children believe the OSA has made 'absolutely no difference.'

When regulators look to massive settlements—like the $18 billion agreement Meta reached regarding US claims—they see a roadmap for enforcement. But without a viable collection mechanism for companies operating overseas, Ofcom is just playing a game of regulatory theater. Until the UK government strengthens these powers to ensure fines are paid regardless of where assets are held, the Online Safety Act will remain a paper tiger.