Wikimedia Foundation challenges Online Safety Act categorisation in landmark judicial review

The High Court delivered its judgement on 11 August 2025 in Wikimedia Foundation & Anor v Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, marking a significant challenge to the regulatory framework established under the Online Safety Act 2023.

The Wikimedia Foundation, the charitable organisation operating Wikipedia, together with BLN, a prominent platform editor, sought judicial review of Regulation 3 of the Online Safety Act. This provision establishes threshold conditions determining which online services qualify as "Category 1" platforms subject to enhanced statutory duties designed to improve online safety standards.

The claimants argued that Wikipedia faces disproportionate regulatory burden under criteria ostensibly designed for large commercial social media platforms. Their challenge centred on assertions that the categorisation criteria are fundamentally flawed and excessively broad, capturing platforms that operate distinctly from the intended regulatory targets.

Wikipedia's collaborative editorial model differs markedly from conventional social media platforms. Rather than implementing stringent contributor verification systems, it relies upon community-driven content moderation processes. The claimants contended that this operational distinction renders the platform unsuitable for Category 1 classification, despite hosting user-generated content.

Mr Justice Johnson examined whether the Secretary of State had adequately considered regulatory implications for platforms falling outside the legislation's primary scope. The judgement revealed that the Secretary of State relied predominantly upon Ofcom guidance rather than conducting comprehensive analysis of how regulations would affect platforms like Wikipedia.

The court acknowledged that whilst the regulations might encompass services not presenting the specific risks they address, the Secretary of State remained within reasonable parameters by following Ofcom's recommendations. Mr Justice Johnson recognised the definitional complexities surrounding functionalities such as "content recommender systems" and their relationship to viral content dissemination across different platform models.

The urgency of resolution was emphasised given Wikipedia's operational scale, with millions of monthly users potentially affected by regulatory implementation. Category 1 compliance requirements could fundamentally alter Wikipedia's functionality, potentially necessitating access restrictions for substantial portions of its user base should extensive verification and moderation criteria become mandatory.

Although the claim was dismissed on grounds that the decision-making process adhered to established legal frameworks, the judgement stops short of endorsing unrestricted implementation of regulations that could unduly constrain Wikipedia's distinctive operational model. Critical questions remain regarding the balance between user verification requirements and safeguarding freedom of expression principles.

The regulatory landscape continues evolving as Ofcom must establish a Category 1 services register, determining Wikipedia's classification under the Act's criteria. This ongoing process may generate additional legal challenges and will likely attract considerable scrutiny from stakeholders navigating the developing online safety legislative framework.

The case illuminates the inherent tension in regulating diverse online platforms that serve essential public discourse functions whilst addressing legitimate safety concerns within legal frameworks potentially inadequate for accommodating varied service models. The judgement underscores regulatory complexity when applying broad statutory provisions to platforms operating outside conventional social media paradigms.

Future developments in this regulatory sphere will prove instructive for understanding how online safety legislation adapts to encompass the full spectrum of digital platforms whilst preserving their unique contributions to public knowledge and discourse.