Attorneys representing 4chan and Kiwi Farms have filed an opposition to the UK Office of Communications’ (Ofcom) motion to dismiss their US lawsuit, arguing that the British regulator’s attempt to enforce its Online Safety Act (OSA) on American platforms amounts to unlawful foreign censorship and overreach into the United States’ constitutional domain.

The filing, made in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on December 29, 2025, contends that Ofcom’s actions, sending legally binding “Section 100 Orders” via email to compel compliance with the OSA, violate US sovereignty and the First Amendment.

We obtained a copy of the filing for you here.

The plaintiffs assert that Ofcom’s conduct has no legal force in the United States because it bypassed all recognized international service procedures, including the Hague Service Convention and the US–UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.

Lawyers Ron Coleman and Preston Byrne argue that Ofcom’s regulatory model functions like a commercial enterprise rather than a sovereign body, funded through fees extracted from companies it regulates.

Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the plaintiffs maintain that this structure places Ofcom’s operations within the “commercial activity” exception, thereby stripping it of immunity from suit in US courts.

The opposition brief situates the dispute within a broader geopolitical context, describing a “diplomatic standoff” between Washington and London over the reach of online speech laws.

It cites US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, who called Ofcom’s actions “censorship of Americans in America” and a “red line” for the US government.

At issue is whether the United Kingdom can compel US-based websites to remove or monitor speech that remains lawful under American law.

Ofcom’s notices to 4chan and Kiwi Farms included threats of multimillion-pound fines and criminal penalties for refusing to conduct “illegal content risk assessments” and implement age-verification systems.

Both companies argue that complying would require violating the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The plaintiffs also accuse Ofcom of targeting smaller American platforms to “make public examples” of them as part of an international campaign to export European-style speech regulation.

The filing ties Ofcom’s activities to what it calls the “censorship-industrial complex,” a network of government agencies and private advocacy groups collaborating to standardize digital content controls.

In essence, the opposition asks the DC court to confirm that the United Kingdom cannot impose or serve censorship orders on US soil, nor conscript Americans into enforcing foreign speech laws.