Clean Up The Internet Launches Legal Challenge Over Ofcom’s Secrecy on Big Tech Engagement

As the regulator responsible for enforcement under the Online Safety Act, Ofcom decides what social media platforms are - and aren’t - required to do to improve the safety of their UK users. These decisions have huge implications, not just for the regulated companies but (and we would say, more importantly) also for millions of people using their services.

Yet, despite the huge public interest in its decisions and how they are taken, Ofcom is currently refusing to disclose even the most basic information about its dealings with the tech companies it regulates. Citing an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act, in the past year Ofcom has:

• Refused to say which companies persuaded it to water down a key measure in the Illegal Content Codes of Practice - or what evidence these companies provided

• Refused to even confirm or deny whether it has held any meetings at all with Google or X

• Refused to provide any details of meetings with Meta and TikTok

• Refused to say whether any company it has fined under the OSA has actually paid its fine

Withholding this information impedes accountability and undermines trust. Parliamentarians, journalists, children’s charities, victims of harm online, safety campaigners, and other regulated businesses all need and should be entitled to access to this information, in order to properly scrutinise Ofcom’s work.

Clean Up The Internet has therefore launched a legal challenge to this secrecy, which will be heard by the First‑tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) on 26 February 2026.

Background to the legal challenge: A regulator operating behind closed doors

Since the Online Safety Act became law, Clean Up The Internet has been one of many organisations raising concerns over the pace and ambition of Ofcom’s implementation and enforcement. Amongst our concerns has been an impression that Ofcom is too focused on the interests of the companies it is regulating, and insufficiently focused on improving safety for UK users. The government’s promise that the UK would be the safest place in the world to be online, seems to have been entirely forgotten.

Early last year, Clean Up The Internet submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request seeking to understand how Ofcom is engaging with major platforms such as Meta, TikTok, Google/YouTube, and X (formerly Twitter). This request asked for straightforward information: dates of meetings, attendees, agendas. It also sought information related to a decision made by Ofcom to make changes to the ICUC2 measure in Ofcom’s Illegal Content Codes of Practice. Measure ICU-C2 requires platforms to “have systems and processes designed to swiftly take down illegal content”. However, between the consultation draft and the final version of the measure, Ofcom inserted the phrase “unless it is currently not technically feasible for them to achieve this outcome”, providing a huge loophole. Ofcom stated at the time of publication that this decision had been informed by feedback from a “small number” of stakeholders, without disclosing who these stakeholders were or what they had said.

Ofcom refused to disclose most of the information we requested. This included declining to provide the dates, agendas or attendees of any meetings between Ofcom’s senior leadership and representatives of Meta, X/Twitter, Google/YouTube, or TikTok – in the case of X and Google declining even to “confirm or deny” whether any such meetings had occurred. It also refused to disclose which companies were in the “small number” of industry stakeholders, whose lobbying convinced Ofcom to water down ICU-C2, or what evidence these companies had provided to persuade it to make this change.

As we challenged these refusals, it became clear to us that Ofcom’s refusal to disclose what we had assumed to be quite routine information reflected a systemic approach to secrecy. We determined, through another FOI request, that Ofcom’s use of this exemption is widespread, and has been growing in recent years. Yet another request established that at the time of asking, over 50% of requests for information relating to the OSA had been refused or partially refused, citing this exemption.

Ofcom’s reliance on this exemption to withhold basic information appears to continue. Just last week, Ofcom published a response to a request for information on whether fines levied by Ofcom under the OSA were actually being paid or not. Again, Ofcom argued information as to whether or not a fine has been paid is exempt from disclosure - even though Ofcom is happy to issue self-congratulatory press releases announcing that such fines have been levied. The fact of the fines is already public, yet Ofcom claims that the payment status remains confidential.  One has to ask whose interests are being protected.

Lack of transparency as an obstacle to parliamentary scrutiny

Ofcom CEO Melanie Dawes

Parliamentarians are also unable to access basic information about how Ofcom is engaging with regulated companies. The Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, Chi Onwurah MP, tabled a Written Question to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, asking the Secretary of State “what steps he is taking to ensure that Ofcom publishes details of (a) meetings and (b) correspondence with large social media companies.” The Government’s bland response referred back to Ofcom being “in scope of the Freedom of Information Act”.

In an oral evidence session of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee with Ofcom’s leadership, MPs pressed Ofcom CEO Melanie Dawes further on this issue, and expressed increasing concern at her response.

Adam Thompson MP asked directly, “Do you think that Ofcom should have a duty of transparency, particularly regarding the meetings that you have with companies you are engaging with? I mean the big tech firms.” 

As Melanie Dawes sought to defend the lack of transparency, Chi Onwurah MP observed from the Chair that “When I worked for Ofcom I remember there was so much more pressure to meet big companies like BT than small companies, which often do not have the time. How can we understand the extent to which you are engaging with big tech rather than small and medium-sized businesses and, particularly, citizen representations? My constituents have the impression that big tech is all in league with Government, and you are kind of playing to that if you say you are not willing to share how you engage with companies.” 

Lauren Sullivan MP added, “The question is always: “Who guards the guards?” Who are the people who can see and check on the judgments that you are making, to ensure that transparency? At the minute, it feels like a closed book, and we are here to trust you, which we can do, but how do we get that assurance?”

Melanie Dawes undertook to write to the committee addressing these concerns, but in her subsequent letter doubled down on her earlier position, claiming that “We believe that even to publish details of which meetings have been held with stakeholders and regulated companies would have a chilling effect on our engagement with them.”

The purported legal justification for Ofcom’s veil of secrecy

Ofcom has argued, in its responses to our Freedom of Information requests, that Section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 2000 applies. This acts as an absolute exemption for information whose disclosure is prohibited by other legislation. Ofcom argues that Section 393 of the Communications Act 2003 (CA) prohibits the disclosure of any information “with respect to a particular business” that Ofcom has “obtained in exercise of a power” under the OSA. Ofcom considers this to include:

• information provided voluntarily

• information submitted through consultations

• the fact of whether or not meetings took place

• the identities of companies who have influenced regulatory decisions

• the payment status of fines

Because Section 44 FOIA is an absolute exemption, Ofcom argues that it is irrelevant to consider whether or not such blanket lack of transparency is in the public interest.

In September 2025, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) upheld Ofcom’s refusal to disclose this information. The ICO accepted Ofcom’s argument that S393 CA prohibits the disclosure of such information, and that therefore the information is exempt from the FOIA. Whilst we were disappointed with the ICO’s decision, it was not unexpected that one UK regulator should rule in favour of another’s desire to protect itself from additional scrutiny.

Clean Up The Internet believes this interpretation of Section 393 CA is incorrect and unreasonably broad. Parliament cannot have intended to create a regulatory regime where Ofcom’s engagement with regulated companies occurs behind a veil of secrecy. We believe that these exemptions are intended only to protect genuinely sensitive information, obtained by the regulator through enforcement of the law. We believe that they are not intended to allow the blanket concealment of meetings (most of which we expect will have been requested by the companies in order to lobby Ofcom, rather than having been compelled by Ofcom) or emails, or the facts about whether or not a fine has even been paid. We are calling on Ofcom to disclose the requested information, and to improve its approach to transparency in the future.

What happens next

The Tribunal hearing on 26 February 2026 seeks to determine whether Ofcom can continue to rely on a blanket interpretation of Section 393 CA to avoid transparency — or whether the public has a right to know how the Online Safety Act is being shaped and enforced.

This case is about more than one FOI request. It is about ensuring that the UK’s online safety regime is accountable, trustworthy, and resistant to undue influence. It asks the fundamental question whether Ofcom should be prioritising the interests of private companies or the public. 

We will provide further updates as the case progresses and encourage all with an interest in this case to get in touch.