Ofcom's Unpaid Fines Problem Grows

At a House of Lords committee hearing this week, Ofcom executives conceded that the majority of fines levied under the Online Safety Act (OSA) have not been paid, exposing a gap between the regulator's ability to issue penalties and its power to collect them. The admission came as Ofcom defended its enforcement record against criticism that it has been too timid.

Admission of Unpaid Fines

Suzanne Cater, Ofcom's director of enforcement, told the Communications and Digital Committee that although another payment arrived this week, "realistically the majority have not been paid." She did not specify how many of the 11 service providers fined under the OSA have failed to pay, nor did she detail the payment received this week.

Ofcom has imposed fines totaling more than £7 million ($9.4 million) on 11 service providers since gaining the powers. The largest single penalty so far was £1.4 million ($1.88 million) against 8579 LLC in February.

Smaller Firms, Bigger Debts

Oliver Griffiths, group director at Ofcom, said enforcement has so far focused primarily on smaller companies in the pornography industry. Those businesses often lack UK assets, making debt recovery difficult. Griffiths told peers on Tuesday: "I think it looks acute at the moment. I think over time, as we are fining the bigger companies, if they're in breach of the act, this will be less of an issue."

The regulator hopes that targeting larger platforms will improve collection rates, but the current backlog remains unresolved.

Limits of Disruption Powers

Ofcom officials pointed to the limits of their powers and the ways online platforms structure their operations to evade enforcement. Cater said the regulator is beginning to exercise powers to hold senior managers personally liable in certain circumstances, but acknowledged that business disruption powers have limits.

Ofcom cannot shut down a website globally, but it can ask a court to restrict access to one in the UK. It first invoked that power in May, applying for an order against an unnamed suicide forum whose operator it had already fined £950,000 ($1.2 million). Services do not escape the OSA merely by moving their operations and infrastructure overseas, as courts can order third parties such as ISPs to restrict UK access.

However, business disruption measures require continuing noncompliance with the OSA and cannot be used solely to recover an unpaid fine. Griffiths said some services had complied after being fined but failed to pay the penalty, leaving Ofcom to pursue the debt separately – a potentially difficult process when a company has no UK assets.

Enforcement Activity Under Scrutiny

Cater insisted that Ofcom was showing its teeth despite criticism that the regulator had been too timid. "I think we are very active in using our enforcement powers," she told peers, pointing to the six active enforcement programs and 40 formal investigations covering more than 100 different services, including Telegram, TikTok, and X.

"We've been more active than any other regulator in the world when it comes to enforcing online safety laws."

— An Ofcom spokesperson

The spokesperson added: "Some of the fines we've issued have been paid and some have not yet passed their deadlines to pay. Where deadlines have passed and we have yet to receive payment, we have initiated work regarding the pursuit of that debt."

They explained that if a company has assets in the UK, the process is relatively straightforward. If a company does not have assets in the UK, the process is more complex. "Given this is an ongoing operational matter, we can't provide further details about specific companies."

Mixed Signals on Effectiveness

Despite Ofcom's defense of its enforcement record, Griffiths said its own tracking metrics left him "underwhelmed" by the OSA's effect on online safety so far. He cited commitments from X to remove hateful and terrorist content more quickly, and from Meta and Snap to tackle grooming, as encouraging signs.

"But I think [this is] a one-way ratchet that is going to be building up over time, and we're confident that the commitments that we've seen from some of the big services and the continuing momentum that we have is going to make a significant change over time."

— Oliver Griffiths, group director at Ofcom

The comments came a week after Children's Commissioner for England Dame Rachel de Souza told peers that children believed the OSA "has made absolutely no difference." Young people have little understanding of the legislation or how it aimed to change their online experience, de Souza said. She was especially critical of the legislation's focus on moderating content instead of looking to change online platforms' harmful and addictive designs.

Meta Settlement Raises Questions

The hearing also turned to Meta's recent settlement of US claims that Facebook and Instagram harmed children. Lord James Knight asked whether the "eye-catching" agreement, worth up to $18 billion, would influence Ofcom's enforcement strategy. Griffiths said the case demonstrated both how much platforms might pay to settle online safety litigation and how effective enforcement could bring about changes to their services.

What It Means for Online Safety

The collection gap raises questions about the practical impact of the OSA. If fines go unpaid, the deterrent effect may be weakened, and platforms may continue to comply just enough to avoid being blocked. Ofcom's push to target larger companies could improve collection rates, but only if those firms have UK assets or face meaningful consequences. The regulator's ongoing discussions with the UK government about strengthening its powers suggest it recognizes the limitations. For now, the OSA's enforcement remains a work in progress, with Ofcom chasing debts while trying to show it is serious about online safety.