4chan has announced it will refuse to pay penalties levied under the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act, escalating a cross-border dispute over online speech and regulatory enforcement. The site’s lawyers argue that Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator, lacks jurisdiction over the U.S.-based imageboard Ars Technica reports.

According to attorney Preston Byrne, Ofcom’s notices “create no legal obligations in the United States.” Byrne described the regulator’s investigation as an “illegal campaign of harassment” targeting U.S. tech companies. Ofcom had opened a probe into whether 4chan was taking necessary steps to prevent illegal content, later issuing a provisional notice of contravention when the platform failed to respond to two requests for information.

Ofcom has indicated it could impose an initial fine of £20,000 and additional daily penalties. Under the Online Safety Act, maximum fines can reach £18 million or 10% of global revenue. While enforcement against offshore providers remains uncertain, experts note Ofcom could seek court orders to pressure third parties—such as search engines, payment providers, or ISPs—to restrict 4chan’s UK presence.

4chan’s legal team, including Byrne & Storm and Coleman Law, maintains that as a Delaware-incorporated entity with no UK operations, it cannot be compelled to comply. In a statement, the lawyers said: “American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an e-mail.”

The platform has also called on the Trump administration to intervene, urging the U.S. government to “invoke all diplomatic and legal levers” to shield American companies from what it characterizes as extraterritorial censorship demands. The appeal comes as tensions rise between U.S. regulators and foreign governments over conflicting internet governance regimes.

The Federal Trade Commission signaled alignment with that concern. FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson sent letters to major technology companies—including Alphabet, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple—warning that complying with foreign censorship requirements could itself violate U.S. law. The letters specifically cited the UK’s Online Safety Act and the EU’s Digital Services Act as examples of statutes that risk forcing U.S. firms to curtail Americans’ speech and security protections.

The regulatory clash is not limited to 4chan. The Wikimedia Foundation is contesting provisions of the UK law that could require identity verification for Wikipedia contributors, warning of risks ranging from data breaches to retaliation by authoritarian governments. Meanwhile, the UK recently abandoned a demand that Apple introduce a surveillance backdoor under its Investigatory Powers Act, following pushback from Washington.