How Far Can Britain Go in Policing X Under the Online Safety Act?

How Far Can Britain Go in Policing X Under the Online Safety Act?

Britain’s standoff with Elon Musk’s X is fast becoming a defining test of the UK’s Online Safety Act—and of how much power a democratic state can realistically wield over a global social media platform. Ministers have hinted that nothing is off the table, including blocking the platform entirely. But the real question is not what politicians would like to do, but what the law actually allows—and how far regulators can push without overstepping it.

At the centre of the dispute is Ofcom’s investigation into whether X is failing to meet its legal duties under the Online Safety Act. The probe was triggered by concerns over the platform’s Grok AI tool, which has reportedly generated non-consensual and indecent images, including of women and children. That issue, however, is only one part of a much broader examination of how X handles illegal and harmful content.

What Powers Does the Law Really Give Britain?

The Online Safety Act gives Ofcom some of the strongest regulatory tools ever aimed at tech platforms operating in the UK. In extreme cases, the regulator can ask the courts to impose so-called “business disruption measures.” These can include ordering internet service providers to block access to a platform, or requiring payment services and advertisers to cut ties—steps that could make operating in the UK effectively impossible.

On paper, that amounts to a de facto ban. But the law is designed to make such measures exceptionally difficult to deploy. They are explicitly framed as a last resort, intended only when a company is persistently non-compliant and refuses to fix serious breaches after repeated warnings and penalties.

What X Is Being Investigated For

Ofcom is not just looking at a single product failure or moderation slip-up. The investigation is examining whether X has met its core obligations under the Act: assessing the risk of illegal content, preventing users from encountering it, removing it quickly when it appears, protecting users’ privacy, safeguarding children, and enforcing age checks where pornographic material is accessible.

If proven, these would point to structural shortcomings rather than isolated mistakes—precisely the kind of issues the Online Safety Act was written to address.

Politics vs. Process

Publicly, government ministers have struck a tough tone, backing Ofcom to use the strongest enforcement tools available. But regulators operate under very different constraints than politicians. Ofcom must follow a rigid legal process, documenting each breach, showing that X was given a chance to comply, and demonstrating that lesser enforcement options were inadequate.

Any shortcut would be risky. If Ofcom were seen to act under political pressure rather than legal necessity, X could challenge the decision in court through judicial review. A ban imposed without airtight legal justification would be vulnerable to being overturned, potentially weakening the entire regulatory regime.

Sanctions Short of a Ban

Long before Britain reaches the point of blocking X, Ofcom has other powerful options. It can order the company to make specific changes to its systems and policies, and it can impose substantial fines—up to £18 million or 10 percent of global revenue, whichever is higher.

For a platform already struggling with advertiser confidence, such penalties could be far more damaging than headline-grabbing threats of a ban. Compliance orders paired with large fines are also more defensible in court, making them the more likely enforcement path.

How Fast Could This Move?

Although Ofcom investigations often take months, this case is unfolding unusually quickly. The speed with which the regulator opened a formal inquiry suggests it recognises both the seriousness of the allegations and the intense public scrutiny. Even so, speed has limits. Any provisional finding must allow X to respond and challenge the conclusions before a final decision is reached.

That process is not optional—it is fundamental to ensuring that enforcement survives legal challenge.

So, How Far Can Britain Go?

In theory, very far. In practice, much less quickly than political rhetoric implies. A full-scale shutdown of X in the UK would require Ofcom to prove persistent, serious non-compliance and to show that fines, orders, and other remedies had failed. Only then would courts be likely to approve business disruption measures.

The more probable outcome, at least initially, is a combination of formal breach findings, hefty financial penalties, and legally binding demands for reform. Only if X openly defies those measures would the idea of blocking the platform move from hypothetical to realistic.

What’s Really at Stake

This confrontation is about more than one company. It is a stress test for the UK’s attempt to regulate global digital platforms without abandoning due process or free expression. If Britain succeeds, it will strengthen the case that democratic states can impose meaningful rules on powerful tech firms. If it fails, it will reinforce the perception that global platforms can outlast and outmaneuver national regulators.

For now, the Online Safety Act gives Britain the tools—but whether it can use them effectively, lawfully, and decisively remains an open question.

30,000 Soldiers Killed Last Month? Separating Fact from War Propaganda | Maya