When Ofcom imposed a fine totalling £520,000 on US-based online forum 4chan earlier this year for failing to protect children from pornography and illegal content, the company’s lawyers simply replied with a picture of a hamster.
“Mr Whiskers looks forward to your confirmation decision, which will be shredded and used to line his enclosure upon receipt,” Preston Byrne, who represents 4chan, wrote.
It wasn’t the first time the UK regulator had tried to force the forum to pay for alleged breaches of the Online Safety Act (OSA). In August 2025 it had attempted to impose a £20,000 fine upon 4chan, which the forum responded to by filing a lawsuit against Ofcom in the US courts (and by telling them the paperwork would make excellent bedding for Mr Byrne’s pet hamster).
When Ofcom confirmed its £520,000 fine in March, Mr Byrne responded with an AI-generated image of a giant hamster wearing a Godzilla onesie.
While the responses may seem like a joke, in a blog post he insists they are “the most serious and consequential legal communications I have ever sent”. Their argument is simple – because 4chan is based in the US, he says Ofcom has no power to impose or collect a fine, and told The Independent any attempt to do so is “theatre”.
In response, Ofcom said they are willing to work with local law enforcement and courts to pursue debts abroad and have “initiated work” to pursue the funds owed.
On Thursday, the latest deadline set by Ofcom will pass, and 4chan remains clear it has no intention of paying the regulator.
Legal experts say Ofcom is now likely to move to block 4chan to UK users in a bid to “send a message”, but that any action is likely to be “practically unworkable” because such blocks are easily circumvented by Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). Meanwhile, 4chan has said risking a block is a price it is prepared to pay.
Lawyer Myles Jackman, who specialises in sexual liberties and obscenity law, said the case lays bare one of the practical weaknesses of the OSA – that the UK regulator has “no right imposing fines on US domiciled companies that they have no right to collect”.
“The UK government has no jurisdiction over the American Constitution,” he said, adding that Ofcom could decide to issue enforcement proceedings in the US as they have threatened but that they would “seem destined to fail”.
He believes in order to retain “credibility” Ofcom will be left no choice but to block 4chan on UK Internet Service Providers (ISPs), making the site inaccessible to users in the country. But he points out this will be easy to work around for those with VPNs.
More widely, he suggests the 4chan fight will become a “test case” for how effective such legislation can be, as well as having a “disastrous” impact on foreign tech investment in the country.
“This is undoubtedly a test case for global regulatory overreach,” he said. “Without a disastrous ban on VPN use in the UK the regulatory regime is practically unworkable”.
Nick Phillips, partner at law firm Edwin Coe, agreed that enforcing the fine against a company with no UK assets is “going to be difficult”.
However, he said the OSA does give the government the ability to achieve its objective to protect UK consumers by giving it the “nuclear option” of allowing it to block users from accessing 4chan, but conceded such action will do nothing to recover the regulator’s money.
Concern has also been raised over what impact the powers granted to Ofcom by the OSA could have on foreign tech investment in the country’s economy. Mr Phillips said a number of smaller platforms have voluntarily left the UK market because it was deemed “too difficult”. But for him, it is a sacrifice the government has to make.
“I think the important thing here is that UK consumers are protected,” he said. “The OSA undoubtedly gives Ofcom the tools to do that. These laws are there to protect UK consumers, particularly those who are underage.
“You’ve got to enforce them otherwise the whole thing is just pointless.”
An Ofcom spokesperson said it will pursue the recovery of unpaid fines wherever possible “regardless of where the firm is based”.
“If it has assets in the UK – as the ‘Big Tech’ companies do – the process is relatively straightforward and would usually involve going through the UK courts to seek orders for bailiffs to seize and sell UK assets in order to satisfy a debt,” a spokesperson explained. “If a company does not have assets in the UK, the process can be more complex, and can involve engaging debt recovery and financial investigation specialists in the jurisdiction where companies do have assets, as well as local law enforcement agencies and courts.
“We have initiated work to pursue recovery of debt from all companies that have not paid their fines by their deadlines.”
Mr Byrne said: “My client’s position is that the OSA’s extraterritorial enforcement against it is theatre. We are confused by Ofcom’s persistence in pursuing American targets who are under no obligation to pay any fine to anyone, and engaged in perfectly lawful, and indeed constitutionally protected, activity here in the United States.”
The Department for Science, Technology, and Innovation has been contacted for comment.
