4CHAN v OFCOM▊
Drama dossier US District Court, D.D.C. Fine: £520,000 Paid: £0
A UK regulator fined a US imageboard £520,000 for not age-checking its users. 4chan's American lawyer replied with an AI-generated picture of a giant hamster — "Nigel J. Whiskerford," dressed as Godzilla, holding a peanut — and a note that the United Kingdom lost the Revolutionary War. Then 4chan sued the regulator in Washington. Nobody has paid a penny. It was the site's second siege of the year: months earlier, in April 2025, 4chan had been hacked offline for roughly a week — reportedly by its rival Soyjak.party board — so 2025 saw it besieged from both sides at once, breached from within the scene and fined from without by a state.
As has been explained to your agency, ad nauseam, the United Kingdom lost the American Revolutionary War. We are not in the mood to discuss the matter further, and have not been in the mood for 250 years.
The opening of 4chan's response email to Ofcom, sent by counsel Preston Byrne, as reproduced by Reason (Mar 2026)
4chan will not be obeying Ofcom, now or ever.
Preston Byrne, 4chan's US counsel, on his own blog, "The Ofcom Files" (Oct 2025)
- PARTIES
- Ofcom (UK Office of Communications, the statutory online-safety regulator) v. 4chan Community Support LLC, a US imageboard FACT
- COUNSEL
- Preston Byrne (Byrne & Storm, US) for 4chan · Lolcow LLC, operator of Kiwi Farms, joined as co-plaintiff in the US countersuit FACT
- THE LAW
- UK Online Safety Act 2023, which Ofcom enforces against any service with "links to the UK," wherever it is based FACT
- THE FINE
- £520,000 total — £450,000 (age checks) + £50,000 (illegal-content risk assessment) + £20,000 (terms/information) — plus daily penalties for continued non-compliance FACT
- THE DRAMA
- A first-of-its-kind extraterritorial fine, a federal countersuit in Washington DC, and a running gag conducted entirely in AI-generated rodents
- STATUS
- UNPAID — the penalty is imposed and uncollected; the US suit is pending; 4chan remains reachable in the UK as of writing
- ALSO
- Hacked offline ~1 week, Apr 2025 — reportedly by the rival Soyjak.party board; source code leaked and moderator information exposed ATTRIBUTED
This is not a fraud file. It is a jurisdiction file — a state regulator on one side of an ocean, a website and a constitution on the other, and the question of whose writ runs where. Both sides believe they are plainly correct. Both may be. That is what makes it drama.
Every beat below carries its receipt: Ofcom's own decisions, 4chan's own filings and replies. The regulator's case and the site's defense each get the microphone at full volume. You decide whose jurisdiction this is.
the drama timeline
PROLOGUE — HACKED FROM WITHIN (APR 2025)
Before the UK state came for 4chan from without, the scene came for it from within. A rival board walked in through a door that had reportedly been left unlocked since 2016.
-
APR 2025
The sharty walks in
On 14 April 2025 4chan was breached and knocked offline for roughly a week. Intruders reportedly tied to the rival Soyjak.party board — the "sharty" — restored 4chan's long-deleted /qa/ board, leaked the site's source code, and exposed moderator and volunteer-"janitor" information (reported to include admin and mod email addresses, some said to be institutional). Reporting traced the entry to an out-of-date software package exploited via a bogus PDF upload — on a stack that had reportedly gone years without patching.
The board that weaponized anonymity against the rest of the internet could not keep the anonymity of its own back rooms.
-
APR 2025
Back online, and legacy to the bone
After nearly two weeks dark, 4chan returned and called the breach "catastrophic." By its own account a hacker on a UK IP address exploited outdated software to reach a server, then spent hours exfiltrating database tables and source code; the site blamed long-standing financial and personnel shortfalls for the unpatched stack. The lesson under the drama: the internet's most notorious board ran on brittle, legacy code — the same fragility a UK regulator would spend the rest of 2025 fining it over.
ACT I — THE LETTERS (MAR–AUG 2025)
A regulator with a new statute writes to a website that has never answered a UK letter in its life. The website does not answer this one either.
-
MAR–APR 2025
The information requests
Under the Online Safety Act 2023, Ofcom opens an investigation into 4chan and issues statutory information requests — including, on 14 April 2025, a demand for 4chan's illegal-content risk assessment and details of its "qualifying worldwide revenue." The Act gives Ofcom reach over any service with "links to the UK," wherever based. 4chan does not respond.
-
AUG 16, 2025
The provisional fine
Ofcom provisionally fines 4chan for its failure to engage. By counsel Preston Byrne's own account, the provisional penalty lands on 16 August 2025. 4chan's answer is to prepare a lawsuit — not in London, but in Washington.
ACT II — THE COUNTERSUIT (AUG–OCT 2025)
Denied the argument that the UK has jurisdiction over it, 4chan makes the opposite argument, at full extension, in a US federal court — and brings Kiwi Farms along.
-
AUG 27, 2025
4chan (and Kiwi Farms) sue Ofcom in the US
4chan Community Support LLC and Lolcow LLC — operator of Kiwi Farms — file a civil action in the US District Court for the District of Columbia against Ofcom. Their theory: a UK regulator has no authority to compel a US company to police speech that is lawful in the United States, and the demands violate the First Amendment. The suit challenges the Act's age-verification duty and its s.179 false-communications offence as incompatible with US law.
The rarest move in the repertoire: a website that spent five months refusing to concede a foreign court's jurisdiction, asserting its own court's jurisdiction on the first day it is convenient.
-
OCT 13, 2025
The first fine: £20,000
Ofcom issues its confirmation decision: a fixed penalty of £20,000 plus £100 per day (up to 60 days) for 4chan's failure to comply with the information requests — the first fine ever levied under the Online Safety Act. Suzanne Cater, Ofcom's enforcement director: "any service which flagrantly fails to engage with Ofcom… can expect to face robust enforcement action." Days later, Byrne publishes "The Ofcom Files."
ACT III — THE £520,000 AND THE HAMSTER (MAR 2026)
The information fine was the appetizer. The substantive duties — age checks, risk assessment — carry the real numbers. So does the reply.
-
MAR 19, 2026
£520,000, itemized
Ofcom fines 4chan £450,000 for failing to put age checks in place to keep children from accessing pornography, £50,000 for failing to carry out an illegal-content risk assessment, and £20,000 on the information ground — £520,000 in all — with further daily penalties (reported at up to £800/day combined) accruing until compliance. 4chan is given until 2 April to comply.
-
MAR 2026
Nigel J. Whiskerford, Esq.
4chan's reply to the demand is an AI-generated image of a giant hamster — "Nigel J. Whiskerford," dressed as Godzilla and clutching a peanut — over a letter stating the firm "reserves all rights and waives none," including "the right to… respond to future correspondence with an even larger rodent, such as a marmot." Byrne likens improperly served UK papers to "hamster bedding." The position throughout: 4chan operates only in the US and is protected by the First Amendment.
The immune response, inverted. Where the field usually answers a bad claim with a faster demonstration, here a website answers a state with a bigger rodent — the joke IS the jurisdictional argument, delivered in a form no process server can rebut.
ACT IV — THE STANDOFF (2026–)
Litigation is slow and a hamster is fast. In between, a fine sits uncollected and a website stays online.
-
2026
"We replied with a hamster. Again."
Ofcom renews its demand for payment. 4chan replies with another hamster; Byrne's public summary: "We replied with a hamster. Again." He later devotes an entire essay, "On Hamsters," to the argument that the image "was a humorous way to convey a serious point… [Ofcom's orders] have no legal effect in the United States."
-
EPILOGUE
The block on the table
The fine remains unpaid. Under the Act, Ofcom's remaining escalation is a court order for "business disruption measures" — directing UK ISPs to block the site — and it has continued to pursue collection. As of writing no block has been imposed, the US suit is pending, and no court has ruled on whose law governs. Meanwhile 4chan's counsel has taken to drafting proposed UK free-speech legislation of his own.
both sides, on the record
The statutory duty is real. The Online Safety Act 2023 imposes binding duties on in-scope services, and expressly reaches services with "links to the UK" regardless of where they are based. Ofcom is the designated regulator; the duties came into force in 2025 [1].
The process was ordinary. Ofcom asked 4chan, in writing, for its illegal-content risk assessment and revenue information; 4chan did not answer. The first £20,000 penalty is for that non-engagement, not for any opinion posted on the site [2] [7].
The child-safety ground is specific. The £450,000 penalty is for failing to operate age checks to keep children from pornography — a duty that applies to every in-scope service, and the stated core of the enforcement [3] [4].
Jurisdiction is the whole fight. 4chan's position: it is a US company that operates only in the United States, has no UK establishment, and is under no obligation to obey a UK regulator. Byrne, on the record: "4chan will not be obeying Ofcom, now or ever" [5].
The First Amendment is the shield. The plaintiffs argue the Act compels an American company to suppress speech that is lawful in the US, and that its s.179 false-communications offence and its age-verification mandate (which they say ends anonymous speech) cannot be enforced against them consistent with the Constitution [5] [15].
They took it to a court — theirs. 4chan and Kiwi Farms' operator sued Ofcom in US federal court to have the demands declared unenforceable in America. No court has ruled; the fine is unpaid; the site is up [15] [16].
YOU DECIDE
Two facts are not in dispute. Ofcom imposed a £520,000 fine on 4chan under a law the UK Parliament passed, on grounds — ignored information requests, no age checks, no risk assessment — that are itemized in its own decisions. And 4chan has paid none of it, answered the demands with cartoon rodents, and asked a US court to declare the whole thing unenforceable on American soil. Everything else is the unresolved question underneath: whose writ runs over a website that is legal where it sits and unlawful where it is read.
Weigh the costly signals. Ofcom spent a year of process and staked the credibility of a brand-new statute on its first enforcement. 4chan spent a filing fee, a lawyer, and an image generator — and is, so far, winning on the only scoreboard that clears: the money is uncollected and the site is reachable. The one act that would settle it — a court, somewhere, ruling on jurisdiction — has not happened.
The archive does not judge. The archive merely keeps the tape running.
evidence locker
PRIMARY RECORD
Ofcom — "4chan fined £450,000 for not protecting children from online pornography" (Mar 2026) FACT — the age-check penalty, in the regulator's own words.
ofcom.org.uk/…/4chan-fined-450000… Preston Byrne — "On Hamsters" (Jun 2026) SELF-PUBLISHED — counsel's own account of the hamster reply and the "no legal effect in the United States" argument.
prestonbyrne.com/2026/06/16/hamsters/
PRESS & ANALYSIS
ppc.land — "US websites sue UK regulator over Online Safety Act enforcement" ATTRIBUTED — the countersuit, the Lolcow/Kiwi Farms co-plaintiff, the constitutional claims (403 to bots; live).
ppc.land/us-websites-sue-uk-regulator…
SUBJECTS' OWN CHANNELS — UNEDITED
prestonbyrne.com — the blog of 4chan's US counsel SELF-PUBLISHED — the defense, at length, in its own words.
prestonbyrne.com X — @prestonjbyrne (account link) LIVE — counsel's running commentary. Account-level link only; no fabricated permalink.
x.com/prestonjbyrne 4chan.org — the subject SELF-PUBLISHED — the site itself, still reachable in the UK as of writing.
4chan.org
THE APRIL 2025 BREACH — PRESS RECORD
TechCrunch — "Notorious image board 4chan hacked and internal data leaked" (Apr 15, 2025) FACT /
ATTRIBUTED — the breach, the leaked source code and back end, the exposed moderator/janitor emails; the rival-board claim of responsibility attributed.
techcrunch.com/2025/04/15/notorious-image-board-4chan-hacked… The Register — "4chan back from 'catastrophic' attack with tale of cash woes" (Apr 28, 2025) FACT — the "catastrophic" self-characterization, the UK-IP intruder, the bogus-PDF entry via out-of-date software.
theregister.com/2025/04/28/4chan_back_onlin/
The standard. Everything above is sourced to Ofcom's own investigation pages and confirmation decisions, 4chan's counsel's own published statements and filing, and named press and legal analysis. Facts are stated as facts; the child-safety basis is stated exactly as Ofcom framed it, without embellishment; the jurisdiction-and-First-Amendment defense is the plaintiffs' and is presented at full strength. No court has ruled on the merits and this page says so. No motive is asserted about any individual, and no wrongdoing is alleged beyond the regulatory findings and the parties' own public conduct. The burden of proof is on us, not the subjects. If it couldn't survive a defamation challenge, it wouldn't be on this page.