Britain\u2019s free speech environment is already under intense pressure. Now a proposal would make social media itself a licensed activity, with Ofcom deciding who gets to operate.<\/h5>\n\n\n\n![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/media.reclaimthenet.org\/images\/2026\/09\/CkGBJvOegpwS.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nBy Cindy Harper<\/strong><\/a>September 17, 2026Share<\/p>\n\n\n\nIn the UK, The Social Media Platforms (Ofcom Licensing) Bill had its first reading in the House of Lords on September 7. A first reading means the bill was presented, but not debated or voted on, and is not yet law. It is, however, a formality, and the text<\/u><\/a> is now out there.<\/p>\n\n\n\nIt\u2019s not even a Labour government bill, which one might have expected, but one put forth by a member of the House of Lords, a life peer from the Liberal Democrats, Baroness Benjamin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If it becomes law, the bill would make it an offense to run a social media platform available to users in the UK without a license issued by the country\u2019s communications regulator, Ofcom<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat would qualify as a platform that requires a license is defined in the proposal as one that \u201c(a) has the sole or significant purpose of enabling users to create, share, discover or consume user-generated content, and (b) enables users to discover, interact with or follow the content or accounts of users other than those with whom they communicate privately.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The license would be issued for a fixed term, of up to ten years, and would have to be renewed before it expires. To obtain it, companies would have to apply in writing, while Ofcom would have to \u201chave regard to\u201d a number of things, including duties that would be imposed on licensees, compliance requirements, and any other matters it considers relevant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The license could be granted with conditions that Ofcom \u201cconsiders necessary.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The duties include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cContent made available on its social media platform complies with the laws of the United Kingdom is not materially harmful to users or to the public interest does not incite criminal conduct, violence, hatred or public disorder. Systems are in place to minimise the dissemination of materially false or misleading information. Harmful content identified by Ofcom is removed, restricted or otherwise addressed within such period as Ofcom may specify.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Companies would also have to have in place appropriate staff, trained to carry out their duties; systems to remove or restrict content, and procedures to comply with Ofcom\u2019s directions. They would also have to keep records proving their compliance and produce them to Ofcom on request.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another requirement is that platforms would have to provide information about the identity and authenticity of publishers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ofcom would be able to enforce its decisions by issuing a warning notice, requiring remedial action, suspending or revoking the license. In the case of revocation, Ofcom could go to court to get an order making ISPs block the service in the UK, as well as any other enforcement measures the court considers appropriate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The penalty for operating without a license would be imprisonment of up to two years and\/or a fine. The bill sets the fine at \u201cthe statutory maximum\u201d \u2013 which is \u201cunlimited\u201d according to the Sentencing Council<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\nIt doesn\u2019t take a huge amount of cynicism to suspect that the ultimate goal is to move to a license-based regime, where the authorities don\u2019t even have to prove a breach of rules, they just have to refuse to issue or renew a license.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Campaign<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Age Verification<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
See how identity checks are spreading across the internet and what you can do to push back.Explore the Campaign<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\nWith the Online Safety Act<\/u><\/a>, Ofcom acts after the fact, and has to prove a breach. The maximum fine is \u00a318 million or 10 percent of worldwide turnover.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nBy Cindy Harper<\/strong><\/a>September 17, 2026Share<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the UK, The Social Media Platforms (Ofcom Licensing) Bill had its first reading in the House of Lords on September 7. A first reading means the bill was presented, but not debated or voted on, and is not yet law. It is, however, a formality, and the text<\/u><\/a> is now out there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s not even a Labour government bill, which one might have expected, but one put forth by a member of the House of Lords, a life peer from the Liberal Democrats, Baroness Benjamin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If it becomes law, the bill would make it an offense to run a social media platform available to users in the UK without a license issued by the country\u2019s communications regulator, Ofcom<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What would qualify as a platform that requires a license is defined in the proposal as one that \u201c(a) has the sole or significant purpose of enabling users to create, share, discover or consume user-generated content, and (b) enables users to discover, interact with or follow the content or accounts of users other than those with whom they communicate privately.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The license would be issued for a fixed term, of up to ten years, and would have to be renewed before it expires. To obtain it, companies would have to apply in writing, while Ofcom would have to \u201chave regard to\u201d a number of things, including duties that would be imposed on licensees, compliance requirements, and any other matters it considers relevant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The license could be granted with conditions that Ofcom \u201cconsiders necessary.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The duties include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cContent made available on its social media platform complies with the laws of the United Kingdom is not materially harmful to users or to the public interest does not incite criminal conduct, violence, hatred or public disorder. Systems are in place to minimise the dissemination of materially false or misleading information. Harmful content identified by Ofcom is removed, restricted or otherwise addressed within such period as Ofcom may specify.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Companies would also have to have in place appropriate staff, trained to carry out their duties; systems to remove or restrict content, and procedures to comply with Ofcom\u2019s directions. They would also have to keep records proving their compliance and produce them to Ofcom on request.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another requirement is that platforms would have to provide information about the identity and authenticity of publishers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ofcom would be able to enforce its decisions by issuing a warning notice, requiring remedial action, suspending or revoking the license. In the case of revocation, Ofcom could go to court to get an order making ISPs block the service in the UK, as well as any other enforcement measures the court considers appropriate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The penalty for operating without a license would be imprisonment of up to two years and\/or a fine. The bill sets the fine at \u201cthe statutory maximum\u201d \u2013 which is \u201cunlimited\u201d according to the Sentencing Council<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It doesn\u2019t take a huge amount of cynicism to suspect that the ultimate goal is to move to a license-based regime, where the authorities don\u2019t even have to prove a breach of rules, they just have to refuse to issue or renew a license.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Campaign<\/p>\n\n\n\n See how identity checks are spreading across the internet and what you can do to push back.Explore the Campaign<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n With the Online Safety Act<\/u><\/a>, Ofcom acts after the fact, and has to prove a breach. The maximum fine is \u00a318 million or 10 percent of worldwide turnover.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
Age Verification<\/h2>\n\n\n\n