UK 4chan hit with £450,000 UK fine over age checks - 4chan has until 2 April to implement age assurance, carry out a “suitable and sufficient” illegal harms risk assessment, and rewrite its terms of service or face a daily penalty of £200.

4chan hit with £450,000 UK fine over age checks
POLITICO (archive.ph)
By Mizy Clifton
2026-03-19 10:49:57GMT

LONDON — The U.K.'s media regulator Ofcom fined 4chan £450,000 on Thursday for failing to comply with age check requirements under the Online Safety Act.

The regulator also levied two additional fines of £50,000 and £20,000 on the company for not assessing the risk of users encountering illegal material and failing to specify in its terms of service how they are to be protected from such content, respectively.

Ofcom previously fined 4chan £20,000 for failing to respond to to requests for information from the regulator.

4chan has until 2 April to implement age assurance, carry out a “suitable and sufficient” illegal harms risk assessment, and rewrite its terms of service or face a daily penalty of £200.

“Companies – wherever they’re based – are not allowed to sell unsafe toys to children in the U.K. And society has long protected youngsters from things like alcohol, smoking and gambling. The digital world should be no different,” Suzanne Cater, Ofcom's director of enforcement, said in a statement.

4chan did not immediately respond when contacted for comment.

---

4Chan responds to £520,000 Ofcom fine with AI picture of hamster
BBC News (archive.ph)
By Zoe Kleinman
2026-03-19 12:13:04GMT

The UK online safety regulator Ofcom has fined the US messaging platform 4Chan a total of £520,000 for failing to comply with various aspects of the Online Safety Act.

It includes £450,000 for failing to put in age checks to prevent children from seeing pornography on the platform.

However, a lawyer representing the company - which has previously said it won't pay such fines - has responded to the demand with an AI-generated cartoon image of a hamster.

In a follow-up post on X, 4Chan's lawyer Preston Byrne wrote: "In the only country in which 4chan operates, the United States, it is breaking no law and indeed its conduct is expressly protected by the First Amendment."

The fines also include £50,000 for failing to assess the risk of illegal material being published and a further £20,000 for failing to set out how it protects users from criminal content.

4Chan has refused to pay all previous fines from Ofcom.

Ofcom responded to the BBC's request for a reply to Byrne's posts with a statement from Suzanne Cater, its director of enforcement.

"Companies – wherever they're based – are not allowed to sell unsafe toys to children in the UK. And society has long protected youngsters from things like alcohol, smoking and gambling. The digital world should be no different," she said.

"The UK is setting new standards for online safety. Age checks and risk assessments are cornerstones of our laws, and we'll take robust enforcement action against firms that fall short."

She did not comment on the image 4Chan had published in response to the fine.

4chan01.webp
Lawyers for 4chan responded to Ofcom with an AI-generated picture of a giant hamster

In February 2025 Vice President JD Vance told an audience of world leaders at the AI Summit in Paris that the administration was "growing tired" of foreign countries attempting to regulate its tech businesses.

4chan is known to be an anarchic messaging space, and has often been at the heart of online controversies since it launched 22 years ago.

Ofcom has issued nearly £3m in fines to tech companies around the world for breaches of the UK's online safety laws.

However most of this money has not yet been received.

Ofcom says one company called Itai Tech, which runs a nudification site, paid its fines of £50,000 and £5,000, and blocked UK users from its service, while two other firms added age verification.

It added that other fines were still within their timeframe to be paid, and it was "considering next steps" for those who had missed payment deadlines.

In December the regulator told the BBC it had never heard from a company running 18 porn sites, which it had fined £1m, although the company did later add age verification to its platforms.

Last month Pornhub restricted access to its website in the UK, blaming the introduction of stricter age checks, and said its traffic had fallen by 77%.

---

4chan fined £450,000 for not protecting children from online pornography
www.ofcom.org.uk (archive.ph)
2026-03-19 12:33:15GMT

Ofcom has today fined 4chan £450,000 for not having age checks in place to prevent children from seeing pornography on its site.

The UK’s online safety watchdog has also fined the company £50,000 for not assessing the risk of illegal material appearing on its platform, and £20,000 for not setting out in its terms of service how it protects people from criminal content.

Age checks help prevent kids seeing porn
Last year, the Children's Commissioner found that 59% of children had stumbled across pornography accidentally, without looking for it. Since then, rules under the UK’s Online Safety Act have come into force, meaning sites that host pornographic material must use highly effective age assurance to prevent children from readily accessing that content.

As in other industries, companies that provide an online service to people in the UK must comply with UK laws. The Online Safety Act is concerned with protecting people in the UK. It does not require platforms to restrict what people in other countries can see.[1]

Data shows that nearly 80% of the top 100 pornography sites in the UK now have age checks in place. This means that on average, every day, over 7 million visitors from the UK are accessing pornography services that have deployed age assurance.

4chan fined for failing to protect children
Following investigation, we have fined 4chan £450,000 for failing to comply with the UK’s online age check requirements. The platform must now implement highly effective age assurance by 2 April or face a daily penalty of £500.

We have also fined 4chan £50,000 for failing to assess the risk of people in the UK encountering illegal content on its site. This is fundamental to keeping users safe – in order to put in place appropriate safety measures to protect people, especially children, providers must first understand how harm could take place on their platforms.

The company must now carry out a suitable and sufficient illegal content risk assessment by 2 April or face a daily penalty of £200.

Additionally, we have fined 4chan £20,000 for failing to specify in its terms of service how individuals are to be protected from illegal content, which it must now do by 2 April or face a daily penalty of £100.

Suzanne Cater, Director of Enforcement at Ofcom, said: “Companies – wherever they’re based – are not allowed to sell unsafe toys to children in the UK. And society has long protected youngsters from things like alcohol, smoking and gambling. The digital world should be no different.

“The UK is setting new standards for online safety. Age checks and risk assessments are cornerstones of our laws, and we’ll take robust enforcement action against firms that fall short.”

Payment of fines
We have issued 16 fines under the Online Safety Act against six companies, totalling nearly £4 million, several of which have not yet passed their deadlines to pay. The Act states that we must allow firms a reasonable amount of time to pay a fine, which must be at least 28 days.[2]

If a company fails to pay a fine, there are various options open to us for seeking recovery of that debt – including through the courts.

Where appropriate, if a provider fails to comply with its safety duties, we can also seek a court order for ‘business disruption measures’, such as requiring payment providers or advertisers to withdraw their services from a platform, or requiring Internet Service Providers to block a site in the UK.


Notes to editors
  1. More information on jurisdiction is available here.
  2. See Section 137 (5)(e) and (6) of the Online Safety Act.
 
The anglosphere has now shifted from ruling a globe-spanning kingdom to subjugating a digital fiefdom. Every commonwealth nation works towards this common goal: UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
Or both?

Also it's technically just Jews. Those are the ideological descendants of the aame guys who destroyed the Roman Empire from the inside and reverted Europe back to primal serfdom.
 
Companies – wherever they’re based – are not allowed to sell unsafe toys to children in the U.K.
that’s nice. They aren’t doing that though are they Suze? It’s a clearly labelled adult website, for adults.
I am so sorry for how utterly retarded the UK is, and I hope and pray that common sense prevails in the USA because yes, you guys are the last bastion of sanity
 
You have to be very careful thinking this because London is one of the worlds biggest banking locations. They're a global power in economics and possible the most powerful one of all. You may have an American bank account but it could be under a UK banking institute, or bought up by one. Then your ALL AMERICAN HULK HOGAN ASSETS become part of the system the UK can take from. One bad bank acquisition and they wipe your business account. And who's going to stop them? The government?
Doesn't matter, they still have no ability to collect a fine on, say, me, because they don't like my Facebook page.

They can write me a billion pound fee and I can laugh and throw it in the trash.

They cannot gain control of my bank account even if their bank buys mine because my account is still US based and what you can and can't do with it falls under FDIC and other US law that cannot be subverted that way. They'd have to dismantle 200 years of banking law to do that, not just say "well, okay, this one time because reasons"

This is no different than the UN passing a resolution that the US has to ban private handgun ownership. Even if we signed it? It cannot be enforced.

Modern globalism makes it hard to believe this is true... but it is.

These are simply not collectable and even if the US government supported it? They still wouldn't be collectable.
 
Mashallah it gets struck down in (REAL AMURICAN) court before then, but if it doesn't then when the next demonrat prez comes along and makes some bullshit "trans atlantic partnership" deal, this is gonna be a lot less thumb your nose, more like try and pull it out of your butthole. This isn't 10k for hurt feeling from some fat retard in Surrey, it's an organ of a state that the MIC is reliant on to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran and your e-ternet freedumbs can and will be sacrificed atop that altar.
 
This is literally the equivalent of Pakistan or some other shithole issuing a fatwa against someone.
It means absolutely nothing and nothing will happen because of it other than millions of people laughing at the UK government once more.
 
Modern globalism makes it hard to believe this is true... but it is.

These are simply not collectable and even if the US government supported it? They still wouldn't be collectable.
The worse I can see happening is the fact that Heathrow is a major travel hub. While we can laugh at them for being limey cucks that live in a dystopian hell hole, if any of those doxed 4chan jannies or hiromoot step foot in Heathrow for any type of lay over, there is a good chance that they get arrested. I'm not sure how this will impact British colonies, but the tranny jannies might want to avoid Canada and all those shady Carribean islands that the Brits use to launder money.
 
Mashallah it gets struck down in (REAL AMURICAN) court before then, but if it doesn't then when the next demonrat prez comes along and makes some bullshit "trans atlantic partnership" deal, this is gonna be a lot less thumb your nose, more like try and pull it out of your butthole. This isn't 10k for hurt feeling from some fat retard in Surrey, it's an organ of a state that the MIC is reliant on to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran and your e-ternet freedumbs can and will be sacrificed atop that altar.
No, it doesn't work that way.

There is no mechanism, short of invading, that the UK can use to "pull it out your butthole" .

For that to happen? The US would have to ignore the concept of the Constitution and national sovereignty completely, and if they're doing that?

We have bigger problems and the argument is pointless.

But no, they have no means to enforce collection.... if you think they can? How do you propose it?

And I'd like concrete examples not just "pull it out your butthole".

What are they going to do, specifically, to collect on me for Otterly reading my wrongthink?

I always get rainbows for saying this, just like how I say that the latest gun control measures passed by Democrats will fail, and have consistently been proven right, and people still just say "they'll get what they want" for the rationale.

Before you give me another? I want you to really really think and tell me exactly HOW am I wrong? Without resorting to "it just will" as your evidence.

The worse I can see happening is the fact that Heathrow is a major travel hub. While we can laugh at them for being limey cucks that live in a dystopian hell hole, if any of those doxed 4chan jannies or hiromoot step foot in Heathrow for any type of lay over, there is a good chance that they get arrested. I'm not sure how this will impact British colonies, but the tranny jannies might want to avoid Canada and all those shady Carribean islands that the Brits use to launder money.
Yes, because you went INSIDE the UK.

Canada is not a British colony or dominion, UK law doesn't apply there either.


I'd avoid them too because they're insanely woke, but, if they hadn't gone that route? You'd still be safe.

If you just stay home? They can't do anything.

Which is what 4Chan is doing.
 
They cannot gain control of my bank account even if their bank buys mine because my account is still US based and what you can and can't do with it falls under FDIC and other US law that cannot be subverted that way. They'd have to dismantle 200 years of banking law to do that, not just say "well, okay, this one time because reasons"
You seriously underestimate how nasty Labour are if you think they wouldn't happily shit all over these "ancient banking laws" to do what they want. Labour and the American Dems do not give a fuck what the law is, they are fanatical leftists and will do anything they want and justify it later.
 
Fun fact as an adult, you don't have to pay anything LOL any fine or bill you get can pretty much be ignored with few exceptions! And... And... AND! You can also send random invoices to whomever you want and they maybe are retarded and pay you money for doing nothing! LOL!
 
No, it doesn't work that way.

There is no mechanism, short of invading, that the UK can use to "pull it out your butthole" .

For that to happen? The US would have to ignore the concept of the Constitution and national soverignty completely, and if they're doing that?

We have bigger problems and the argumetn is pointless.

But no, they have no means to enforce collection.... if you think they can? How do you propose it?

And I'd like concrete examples not just "pull it out your butthole".

What are they going to do, specifically, to collect on me for Otterly reading my wrongthink?
I regret to inform you that your laws don't mean anything. You seem to be under the impression that the way things are are the way things will stay, they don't and they won't, your scrap of paper complete meme of a constitution doesn't mean shit if your government decides in doesn't, prime example being your Patriot Act and it's consequences or the absolute joke that is the commerce clause, one that you managed to eventually fix was the privacy component in regards to healthcare (abortion is a privacy issue and therefore must be provided, wat?) so I'll give you that it's not so bad as ours at least.

The fact is that right now, the US needs bri'ish bases to bomb Iran, that's called leverage. Now nothing will come of this in regards to Internet censorship right now because it's not currently on the agenda, but coming into the future? There will be new agendas and fresh leverage, and assuming you're immune to pressure just because of muh national sovereignty is folly.

Specifically to you? You don't get to demand academic sauces sweaty I'm simply stating my bullshit opinion (just like you) so get off your high horse, that said the US is opposed to extradition as a matter of principle, but it's not entirely without precedent, @Otterly isn't quite so clear though, just ask Gary McKinnon.
 
if you think they wouldn't happily shit all over these "ancient banking laws" to do what they want. Labour and the American Dems do not give a fuck what the law is, they are fanatical leftists and will do anything they want and justify it later.
I cited no 'ancient banking law" the FDIC is only 80 years old.

All your citing is more "its just going to happen" based on nothing but gut feeling.

To make US bank accounts susceptible to foreign seizure by foreign courts would require a complete rewriting of current US financial law which doesn't allow it.

Again, I want to know exactly what courts and what laws are going to be used to enforce this unenforceable fine?

You can't give one, can you?
 
Atrás
Top Abajo