LONDON (Reuters) -The operator of Wikipedia on Monday lost a legal challenge to parts of Britain's Online Safety Act, which sets tough new requirements for online platforms but has been criticised for
Wikipedia Operator Fails in Legal Battle Against UK Online Safety Act
LONDON (Reuters) -The operator of Wikipedia on Monday lost a legal challenge to parts of Britain's Online Safety Act, which sets tough new requirements for online platforms and has been criticised for potentially curtailing free speech.
The Wikimedia Foundation took legal action at London's High Court over regulations made under the law, which it said could impose the most stringent category of duties on Wikipedia.
The foundation said if it was subject to so-called Category 1 duties – which would require Wikipedia's users and contributors' identities to be verified – it would need to drastically reduce the number of British users who can access the site.
Judge Jeremy Johnson dismissed its case on Monday, but said the Wikimedia Foundation could bring a further challenge if regulator Ofcom "(impermissibly) concludes that Wikipedia is a Category 1 service".
He added that his decision "does not give Ofcom and the Secretary of State a green light to implement a regime that would significantly impede Wikipedia's operations".
The Wikimedia Foundation said the ruling "does not provide the immediate legal protections for Wikipedia that we hoped for", but welcomed the court's comments emphasising what it said was "the responsibility of Ofcom and the UK government to ensure Wikipedia is protected".
Britain's Department for Science, Innovation and Technology did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Ofcom said it would "continue to progress our work in relation to categorised services".
The Online Safety Act, which became law in 2023 and is being rolled out this year, was criticised earlier this month by social media site X, which said significant changes were needed to the law.
Free-speech campaigners and content creators have complained its rules had been implemented too broadly, resulting in the censorship of legal content.
The British government says the law is designed to protect children and remove illegal content. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle has said those who wanted to overturn it were "on the side of predators".
(Reporting by Sam Tobin; additional reporting by Sachin Ravikumar; editing by William James and Aidan Lewis)
