Online suicide forum: Ofcom's decision

This analysis by our Assistant Legal Adviser, Michelle Ozanne, explains the detail of Ofcom's decision in relation to its investigation of an online suicide forum and highlights some of the questions that arise.

Ofcom has now published the outcome of its decision in relation to its investigation into the provider of an online suicide discussion forum. On 13 May 2026, Ofcom found the forum provider in breach of its duties under the Online Safety Act (sections 9, 10, 20, 21, 23 and 102(8)) because it had not taken proportionate measures to prevent UK users from encountering illegal content that intentionally encourages or assists suicide. 

The forum had previously made several changes, because of Ofcom’s earlier enforcement action, to restrict the forum’s access to people in the UK (through ‘geoblocking’) but following evidence submitted by the Samaritans to Ofcom in November 2025, the regulator found that the changes were not effective or consistently applied. Ofcom fined the forum’s provider £950,000 and directed it to comply with the relevant provisions of the Act. Ofcom also advised that it was preparing to apply for a court order to prevent access to the site in the UK in the event its concerns were not addressed.

Based on changes that the forum made following engagement with Ofcom (summarised below), Ofcom has closed the case confirming that the outcome represents the fullest extent of what can currently be achieved by Ofcom under the Act in terms of securing protections for people in the UK in relation to the operation of the suicide forum.

To summarise:

Changes made by the forum following engagement with Ofcom:

• The forum made changes that improved the effectiveness of the geoblock and further restricted access to the forum, including by preventing new users with UK IP addresses from registering for the service, as well as restricting access for unregistered users with UK IP addresses.
• Following Ofcom's confirmation decision in May 2026, the forum made a further change to the geoblock landing page to remove functionality that allowed existing UK users to log in without use of a VPN or similar technology that masks a user’s location.

Recognition that harms not fully eliminated: 

Ofcom recognises that geoblocks do not fully eliminate all risk of harm posed by services, especially for individuals who choose to access sites through VPNs and use them to mask their country location. They are also aware of a very small number of existing registered users of the forum who, for technical reasons that do not appear linked to the provider’s implementation of the geoblock, are still able to access the site from the UK without using a VPN. 

Grounds for a business disruption measures order: 

Ofcom considered whether to apply to the Court for a business disruption measures order (being either a service restriction order relating to service providers such as payment processors under section 144 of the Act or an access restriction order under section 146 of the Act). 

Based on the evidence as it currently stands, Ofcom decided it cannot apply for such an order at this time because it does not consider the statutory grounds are met for the following reasons:

• The provider has effectively blocked access to its service for the vast majority of UK users, subject to some limited exceptions. The duties in the Act only extend to the design, operation and use of a service in the UK or as it affects UK users. There is no remit to protect users internationally. 
• On the basis of current evidence, Ofcom has not identified any possible further technical enhancements the provider can make to the configuration of the existing geoblock that would materially further restrict the level of access to the service by people in the UK, without affecting its global user base. On this basis, it does not believe that an application for business disruption measures would achieve significant additional online safety protections for people in the UK over and above the provider’s current geoblock.
• For Ofcom to be able to apply to a court for business disruption measures, it is not enough to show that a site poses a significant risk of harm to people in the UK – there has to be ongoing non-compliance with an enforceable duty as well which, because of the geoblock, is lacking. Ofcom does not have the legal powers to apply for a business disruption order for failure to pay a fine alone. 

Assessment of Business Disruption Measures

The inability to utilise the business disruption measures in this case highlights the weaknesses of the enforcement provisions, particularly in relation to payment of fines. It is imperative that Ofcom continues to monitor the forum and in the event of non-compliance with its statutory duties (eg failure to maintain the geoblock effectively bringing the forum back into jurisdiction in its current format), Ofcom must utilise its powers to apply for a business disruption measure. It might be that the route such an application could be based on the fact that it could be illustrated that the forum has a history of non-compliance and financial penalties (which the forum has not paid) have not been effective in deterring further breaches (as per paragraph 9.17 of Ofcom’s Enforcement Guidance).

Ofcom states that on the basis of its current evidence, it has not been possible to identify any further technical enhancements the provider can make to the configuration of the existing geoblock. We query what other evidence Ofcom has reviewed and whether in fact there are other geo-location signals which would not be masked by VPN and which providers should be expected to monitor for as the Australian e-Safety Commissioner suggests in her guidance on geo-location. Ofcom has not discussed this in its decision.

Conditional Orders 

Ofcom considered applying for a ‘conditional order’ – essentially a pre-emptive court order that would become effective automatically in the event a site removes its geoblock – but the Act does not provide a mechanism to do so. And neither Ofcom nor the UK courts have the power through the business disruption measure process to ‘shut down’ a website globally.  

There is a need to review the enforcement measures under the Act and to consider the grant of interim measure powers to Ofcom which would protect the enforcement process and also protect platform users from harm while an investigation is ongoing (particularly if the investigation process is protracted). As is the case in the EU Digital Services Act, these interim powers should be proportionate and temporary, and aimed at mitigating risk.

In addition, the government must take steps to capture US agencies with The Online Safety (List of Overseas Regulators) Regulations 2024, so that Ofcom can exchange information in relation to forums such as in the current case which are causing serious harms to individuals (as permitted under S.114 of the Act).

Other steps

• Ofcom will continue to closely monitor whether the forum is being made available for users in the UK by checking the geoblock remains in place. Should this not remain the case, it has confirmed that it will take rapid action.
• Ofcom noted that following its investigation, major search engines have removed links to the forum. 
• In addition, it has been working with UK internet service providers (ISPs) to make clear that net neutrality guidance does not prevent them from including suicide material in their content filters. Ofcom has written to the relevant ISPs to confirm this. See HERE. The announcement states “We are now issuing a clarification to make clear that the list of public interest exceptions in our guidance is not exhaustive. This is a continually evolving space and there could be other types of harmful content where we would be unlikely to be concerned if ISPs are blocking access on a reasonable, proportionate, targeted and appropriately evidenced basis (for example, content that encourages suicide or self-harm)”.
• Ofcom is working with Government to consider whether the business disruption powers in the OSA can be strengthened to make them more effective and deployable, while maintaining robust safeguards to ensure they continue to afford the right protection of freedom of expression and other fundamental rights. 

In relation to net neutrality, we welcome this approach, and it is helpful that Ofcom has confirmed that the list of public interest exceptions in its guidance on traffic management rule is not exhaustive and that there could be other types of harmful content which may fall within the exception. This is particularly relevant for child sexual abuse material which is currently not captured as an exception in Ofcom’s net neutrality guidance. The guidance already specifically mentions fraudulent content and intimate image abuse content.

Payment of fine

Ofcom has confirmed it is pursuing payment of the fine it has issued to the suicide forum. The suicide forum’s provider is based in the US, and Ofcom has confirmed that it has initiated work regarding the pursuit of this debt. This process is slightly more complicated by the fact it is not a domestic debt. Obtaining a judgment debt and enforcing it is more complex and challenging when a company does not have assets in the UK because engagement with law enforcement agencies and private specialists in third countries is required. Another challenging factor is that the forum is based in the US and enforcement may be further complicated by First Amendment (free speech) obstacles.