The UK Government has officially demanded that Gab, a US-based social media platform, comply with its new censorship regulations outlined in the UK Online Safety Act. The government has threatened significant fines, potentially reaching 18 million euros or 10% of Gab’s annual revenue, for failing to monitor and regulate user speech.

Gab CEO Andrew Torba stated, “We will not comply. We will not pay one cent. We will defend our UK users’ right to speak freely and reject any law that compels censorship.” Gab has released the letter from the UK government along with a legal response from its counsel.

In the letter dated March 26, the UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, outlined that Gab is likely subject to the Act due to its status as a user-to-user service accessible to UK users. The Act mandates that all regulated services conduct an illegal content risk assessment and maintain a record of this assessment, with a compliance deadline that has already passed.

The UK’s “Online Safety Act” is a textbook example of the left’s manipulative use of language. Just look at how it’s framed—who could possibly oppose something called “online safety”? It’s sold to the public as a tool to combat obviously illegal content like child…

— Andrew Torba (@BasedTorba) March 26, 2025

Ofcom warned that failure to comply could lead to enforcement actions, including hefty financial penalties. The regulator plans to issue a legally binding information notice by April 3, requiring Gab to submit documentation regarding its compliance efforts.

Gab’s legal response asserted that the company, based in the United States, operates under the protection of the First Amendment, which safeguards its right to provide an uncensored platform. The response further stated that Gab will not engage with future communications from Ofcom regarding this matter and will report the issue to U.S. authorities for further action.

Torba further argued that the UK’s “Online Safety Act” is not about protecting individuals, but about consolidating control over online speech. While the bill positions itself as a safeguard against harmful content, its broad language leaves room for subjective interpretations of what constitutes “hate speech.”

“It’s sold to the public as a tool to combat obviously illegal content like child exploitation—things no one disagrees with,” Torba said. “But buried in the fine print are vague “hate speech” clauses, which serve as the real tool for narrative control.

“That’s the true objective,” he added, “to police thought and silence dissent under the guise of protecting people.”