The U.K.’s Office of Communications (Ofcom) has issued its first reported fine under the Online Safety Act, targeting the message board 4chan with a £20,000 ($27,100) penalty and the threat of additional daily fines.

4chan has retained U.S. attorneys Byrne & Storm, P.C., and Ron Coleman to challenge the action, arguing that Ofcom has no authority over the Delaware-incorporated company, which holds no assets, offices, or operations in the U.K. In a statement, the lawyers called the penalty an attack on free speech.

“American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an e-mail,” the statement read. “Under settled principles of U.S. law, American courts will not enforce foreign penal fines or censorship codes.”

They further said U.S. federal authorities had been briefed and urged the Trump administration to use diplomatic and legal measures to protect American companies from what they described as “extraterritorial censorship mandates.”

Founded in 2003, 4chan is an anonymous online message board that hosts communities, or “boards,” devoted to subjects ranging from anime and gaming to politics and adult material. Unlike most social platforms, users typically post without accounts or usernames, which has contributed to its culture of anonymity.

Over the years, 4chan has become both a hub of online culture, spawning countless memes and internet trends, and a source of major controversy. Its boards have at times been linked to harassment campaigns, extremist movements, and the spread of hate speech. Certain sections of the site, such as its politically focused /pol/ board, are frequent flashpoints for extremist content, while adult boards have been criticized for lax moderation.

These characteristics make the site a likely target under the Online Safety Act, which compels platforms to take proactive steps against harmful or illegal material.

The Online Safety Act 2023 is the U.K.’s most sweeping online regulation to date. It requires platforms accessible in Britain to limit exposure to harmful content and protect minors.

Key requirements include:

• Age Verification: Adult websites must implement robust age checks to keep under-18s from accessing pornography.
• Removal of Illegal Content: Platforms must detect and take down content involving terrorism, child sexual abuse, or incitement to violence.
• Risk Assessments: Firms must assess and publish how their platforms may expose users to harm.
• Enforcement: Ofcom can issue fines of up to £18 million ($24.3 million) or 10% of a company’s global revenue, and can order internet service providers to block non-compliant platforms.

Ofcom has said the law applies to any service accessible from the U.K., even if the company is based abroad.

Although Ofcom has levied the fine, collecting it presents practical problems. Since 4chan reportedly has no bank accounts or offices in the U.K., regulators would need to seek recognition of the penalty in foreign courts. Legal experts say enforcement in the United States would be unlikely, given First Amendment protections and prohibitions on enforcing foreign censorship codes.

The more immediate option would be to compel U.K. internet service providers to block 4chan, though such measures can be easily circumvented with virtual private networks (VPNs).

The dispute also comes against a backdrop of diplomatic tension. According to The Telegraph, Prime Minister Keir Starmer was warned by the White House in July that targeting American companies under the Online Safety Act could spark wider conflict.

4chan’s lawyers maintain that the fine is part of “an illegal campaign of harassment” against U.S.-based tech firms, setting the stage for a jurisdictional clash over whether the U.K. can enforce its online safety regime against platforms with no physical presence in the country.