OSA phase 3: Ofcom’s draft guidance on news and democratic speech

This explainer by Dr Alexandros Antoniou of Essex University examines Ofcom’s draft guidance on ‘news publisher content’, as well as its draft guidance to assist Cat 1 services in understanding definitions of ‘journalistic content’ and ‘content of democratic importance’ - both published on 10 July 2026 as part of the third phase of the regulator’s implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA).

The analysis starts with a quick overview of the two Ofcom documents. It then discusses some key interpretative choices made by Ofcom, before closing with some areas potentially requiring clarification and operational attention.

A quick guide to the two Ofcom documents

The ‘News Publisher Content’ (NPC) guidance gives Cat 1 platforms a reasonably workable process for handling protection for ‘recognised news publishers’ (RNPs), defined under s 56 of the OSA, and ‘news publisher content’, defined under s 55(8)-(10) of the same.

1. Section 1 briefly presents the NPC duties under s 18 of the OSA.
2. Section 2 explains who counts as an RNP, what counts as "news publisher content" and how providers might identify both.
3. Section 3 explains which platform actions count as acting against "news publisher content" and therefore trigger the Act’s notice-and-response safeguards.
4. Section 4 sets out notice, representations, decisions, urgent post-action notice and redress. It operationalises the s 18 duties.

The guidance matters directly to Cat 1 platforms and RNPs, and indirectly to users who share publisher material, journalists, fact-checkers, moderators, among others.

The ‘Indicative Factors’ guidance (which must be read with Ofcom's Additional Duties Code) is intended to help Cat 1 platforms decide whether content is journalistic content (JC), content of democratic importance (CDI), or both.

1. Section 1 explains the purpose and relevant duties.
2. Section 2 offers four non-binding indicators: subject matter, content purpose, who posted or shared the content, and where it appears.

This guidance supports the ss 17 and 19 OSA duties to take the importance of free expression into account, explain identification methods in terms of service, apply "content of democratic importance" systems and processes across a wide diversity of political opinion, and provide an expedited JC complaints route. It likely affects professional and citizen journalists, campaigners, activists, elected representatives, community groups and ordinary users whose posts may serve a journalistic or democratic function. The four proposed factors, i.e., subject, purpose, speaker and location on the service, provide a sensible starting point, yet remain non-statutory and dependent on platform judgment (Indicative Guidance, paras 1.12-1.13).

Ofcom’s approach to some key concepts and duties

Ofcom applies the Act’s entity-based model for "recognised news publishers" (RNPs), and so protection follows status. The BBC and S4C qualify automatically. Relevant broadcast licensees qualify too. Other publishers must satisfy all the listed conditions (NPC Guidance, para 2.3 and s 56(2) of the Act). A ‘standards code’ may come from an independent regulator or from the publisher itself. Once an official RNP account is identified, every item generated directly through that account qualifies as "news publisher content" (NPC), even if it is not directly related to news. Ofcom’s ‘daily puzzle’ example makes the breadth clear (NPC Guidance, para 2.12).

A link, full written reproduction or unedited audio-visual item can retain NPC status. However, a screenshot, excerpt, trimmed clip or user-added commentary falls outside that category. Ofcom accepts that almost identical material may receive different treatment because of the method used to share it (NPC Guidance, paras 2.16-2.21). This reading follows the OSA closely, but protection chiefly tracks format and provenance (seemingly with less emphasis on e.g., democratic value or audience impact), meaning that its operation can prove a little brittle: a small change in how essentially the same story is shared can switch protection on or off.

Moreover, the regulator appears to usefully adopt a broad understanding of platforms ‘taking action’ in relation to NPC (see also s 18(13) of the OSA). It treats downranking, temporary hiding from users, removal from recommender systems, age-gating, fact-checking labels, community notes, overlays and preview screens as action capable of triggering the OSA s 18 process (NPC Guidance, paras 3.1-3.3). But it also draws limits around what counts as action against NPC. The process excludes some interventions (NPC Guidance, paras 3.4-3.8), including child-only labels, user-controlled restrictions and certain actions against non-NPC material that cannot technically be separated from attached news content (e.g., removing an abusive caption that cannot be detached from the news post it accompanies). Interestingly, the guidance only invites providers to ‘consider the benefit’ of explaining NPC treatment in their terms, because the Act imposes no express NPC terms-of-service duty (para 3.3 but see ss 17(4)-(5) in relation to CDI and ss 19(7)-(8) in relation to JC).

Ofcom appears to favour a broad, purpose-sensitive approach in relation to journalistic content and content of democratic importance. Journalism may include investigation, interviews, reporting, opinion, analysis, commentary, satire, sport, lifestyle and entertainment. Commercial motivation does not disqualify it. Democratic content extends beyond party politics to public policy, institutions, social, economic, educational and scientific questions, and international issues framed through a UK context (Indicative Factors, paras 2.9–2.27).

Ofcom repeatedly asks whether such content ‘can reasonably be understood/considered’ as journalistic or as contributing to democratic debate (Indicative Factors, paras 2.17, 2.25 as well as 2.12, 2.16, 2.20. 2.23, 2.27). This points towards an objective assessment but the guidance does not fully explain whose perspective governs that assessment, what evidence is sufficient, or how uncertainty should be resolved. Ofcom requires a ‘holistic’ assessment, while allowing platforms discretion over which factors they regard as ‘relevant’ and how much weight each should carry (Indicative Factors, paras 2.1-2.2), which can open the door for regulated providers to adopt different classification systems.

Areas for clarification and possible implementation challenges

Ofcom proposes a provider-run ‘self-identification’ procedure as ‘one feasible way’ to locate RNPs (NPC Guidance, paras 2.22-2.24). Providers should publish the process, verify claims and may publish their own RNP lists. Tags or labels may then carry protection through reshares ‘where technically feasible’ (NPC Guidance, paras 2.22-2.30). This is a practical starting mechanism but remains decentralised. One potential consequence here is that small, local or specialist publishers may face repeated applications and evidence requests during verification checks. The draft does not require publication processing times, reasons for refusal or appeal mechanisms. Without a minimum verification protocol, we might see self-identification processes becoming gatekeeping bottlenecks across different Cat 1 services, with delayed RNPs protections as a possible outcome too.

Linked to this, are issues around RNP status, and specifically platform-generated public lists of RNPs that may appear to users as trustworthiness endorsements. The OSA test under s 56(6) accepts self-published standards codes, and Ofcom lists the Broadcasting Code, Impress and the IPSO Editors' Code despite their different oversight structures (NPC Guidance, paras 2.9-2.10). However, the recent DSIT Green Paper Watch This Space: A New Strategic Direction for UK Media (published on 23 June 2026) considers the OSA RNP definition as a possible starting point for ‘trustworthy news’ prominence and recognises that additional responsibilities may be needed (section 2.2, pp 27-29). And the Press Recognition Panel, which was established to provide independent oversight of the system of press self-regulation in the UK, argues the current RNP definition in the OSA is too broad to provide meaningful assurance to the public, as it does not distinguish between publishers subject to effective independent oversight and those relying on industry-controlled or in-house complaints arrangements (see the Panel’s response to the government’s media Green Paper consultation, calling for independently verifiable accountability, esp. pp. 4-5). So, the concern is that RNP status triggers statutory protection but it does not necessarily establish accuracy, due impartiality or public trust generally.

Furthermore, sharing-format distinctions in relation to NPC may produce uneven outcomes. A link to an RNP article is NPC (NPC Guidance para 2.16); a screenshot of the same article is excluded (para 2.17 of the same). An unedited video may qualify; a short user-edited clip generally will not. Added commentary receives no NPC status. Journalistic content or content of democratic importance protection may still apply (where their separate conditions are met) but it seems a non-RNP user can face different treatment. Of course, these boundaries come from the OSA. Ofcom cannot remove them through guidance but could explain these effects more clearly. This matters because screenshots and clips are often used to criticise, verify, explain or simply preserve material. A socially contextualised version of a story may thus receive weaker protection than a bare link to it, potentially producing different outcomes for similar content (and thus complicating moderation).

Another point worth flagging concerns timeframes with differing levels of precision. Ofcom says ‘less than 24 hours’ is unlikely to provide a ‘reasonable’ pre-action response period within which an RNP can make representations (s 18(3)(iv) of the OSA and NPC Guidance, para 4.16). However, for post-action notice and reversal, Ofcom interprets the OSA requirement (s 18(7)) to notify and reverse action ‘swiftly’ as acting ‘at the earliest possible opportunity’ (NPC Guidance, para 4.17). Here, a concrete minimum sits beside an open-ended formulation. Ofcom treats pre-action representations as more time-sensitive than requests to reverse action already taken (NPC Guidance, para 4.18). Delays may be operationally justifiable for providers but the less specific outer limit for restoring content may still create uncertainty and materially reduce an RNP’s reach.

When evaluating representations or reversal requests, Ofcom says platforms may consider ‘any significant public interest’ in access to the content in question (NPC Guidance, paras 4.8, 4.13). It offers no factors here for reviewing the merits. Provider-first complaints are the ordinary redress mechanism (paras 4.19-4.20). By contrast, the ICO uses a more structured approach (i.e., examine the circumstances, balance relevant factors and assess proportionality; see paras 13.18-13.25 of its journalism Code). Ofcom operates in a different context, but a similar decision-making discipline could still be useful.

In terms of the Journalistic Content (JC) factors, Ofcom treats format as irrelevant and accepts professional, freelance and citizen journalism. Function-led signals include informing, explaining, investigating, interviewing, reporting, analysis, commentary and satire. Profit is unnecessary (Indicative Factors, paras 2.8 and 2.19-2.22). This is broadly in line with the ICO’s approach, where journalism is interpreted broadly and is not limited to professionals (see ICO Code, paras 13.9-13.11). But ICO’s Code exposes a potential mismatch. The latter recognises mixed purposes, e.g., a campaign group may process information for both journalism and campaigning (ICO Code, para 13.12), but Ofcom does not expressly address such mixed-purpose content (it only lists campaigning as a CDI signal). This might mean that a civil society organisation whose investigations or advocacy concurrently pursues journalism and campaigning could qualify as journalism for data protection purposes but receive unclear or different classification under the OSA - unless reasonably considered as content ‘designed to educate, explain or inform’ (my emphasis; see Indicative Factors, para 2.20).

Content of Democratic Importance (CDI) factors appear broad and generally purpose-centred. Ofcom includes public policy, political parties/democratic campaign groups, institutions, social, economic, educational and scientific issues, and international matters framed in a UK context (Indicative Factors, paras 2.13-2.16 and 2.24-2.27). Importantly, there is a general warning against over-relying on account identity (content may be wrongly denied, or wrongly given, JC or CDI status) and so it is seen as supporting evidence only (paras 2.28-2.34). This protects a wide civic field, but it is uncertain whether it will do enough to ensure consistent protection for minority or less mainstream viewpoints. There is also a question of whether the ‘specific-intent’ CDI test under s 17(7) of the OSA (‘specifically intended to contribute to democratic political debate in the UK’) might miss documentary reports or first-hand/lived-experience accounts contributing to debate without presenting themselves as political speech, or content that may acquire democratic importance through later events or audience engagement, even where its original political purpose was unsettled. That risk stems partly from the OSA wording itself, but Ofcom’s guidance could offer a method for approaching or resolving borderline cases.

It is also worth noting that crises place the OSA’s protections for NPC, JC and CDI under particular strain. Ofcom encourages proactive searches, increased moderation capacity and rapid deployment, while accepting that accelerated systems may increase false positives affecting RNP, journalistic and democratic content (Crisis Response Protocol, paras 3.20–3.26, 3.65–3.71). Ofcom rejected a bespoke fast-review measure and relies instead on existing safeguards (Crisis Response Protocol, paras A1.125, A1-129 and A1.131). Its post-crisis analysis may examine ‘accuracy and effectiveness of the systems and processes that were deployed’ but need not specifically audit restoration delays or lost reach affecting NPC, JC or CDI (Crisis Response Protocol, paras 3.30–3.34). An express cross-check would reinforce existing duties.

Finally, para 2.31 of the Indicative Factors guidance refers to a ‘registered news publisher’, apparently departing from the RNP (‘recognised’) statutory term. Whether this is intentional or a drafting slip remains unclear.