4chan has again mocked Ofcom after the regulator renewed demands for the controversial image generator to pay its £520,000 Online Safety Act fine, prompting its lawyer to respond with another AI-generated hamster. Preston Byrne, the US lawyer representing 4chan, posted on X on Thursday: “Ofcom wrote. Again. Demanding that 4chan
Saskia Koopman
Thursday 02 July 2026 4:46 pm
4chan has again mocked Ofcom after the regulator renewed demands for the controversial image generator to pay its £520,000 Online Safety Act fine, prompting its lawyer to respond with another AI-generated hamster.
Preston Byrne, the US lawyer representing 4chan, posted on X on Thursday: “Ofcom wrote. Again. Demanding that 4chan pay its fine. Sent us bank details and everything. Oh no. Super scary.”
He added: “We replied with a hamster. Again.”
In a follow-up post, Byrne joked: “That’s not a blunt btw, it’s medicinal herbs. Nigel [the hamster] says friends don’t let friends do drugs. Be cool, stay in school.”
The exchange comes months after Ofcom fined 4chan a total of £520,000 for breaches of the Online Safety Act, including £450,000 for failing to introduce age checks to stop children accessing pornography, £50,000 for failing to carry out an illegal content risk assessment, and £20,000 for failing to explain how it would protect users from criminal content.
#mc_embed_signup { background: #fff; clear: left; font: 14px Helvetica, Arial,sans-serif; width: 100%; max-width: 600px; margin: 20px 0; } #mc-embedded-subscribe-form { margin: 20px 0 !important; } .newsletter-form-flex { display: flex; gap: 0; align-items: center; margin-top: -10px; } .newsletter-form-flex input[type=”email”] { flex: 1; padding: 2px 10px; border: 1px solid rgb(18, 22, 23) !important; border-radius: 12px 0 0 12px !important; } .newsletter-form-flex input[type=”submit”] { padding: 4px 10px !important; margin: 0 !important; background-color: rgb(18, 22, 23) !important; color: rgb(255, 255, 255) !important; border: 1px solid rgb(18, 22, 23) !important; border-radius: 0 12px 12px 0 !important; } .newsletter-banner-content { margin-bottom: 15px; } .newsletter-banner-content h2 { margin: 0 0 10px 0; font-size: 18px; font-weight: 600; } .newsletter-banner-content p { margin: 0 0 10px 0; line-height: 1.5; } .newsletter-banner-content ul, .newsletter-banner-content ol { margin: 0 0 10px 20px; } .newsletter-banner-content a { color: #0073aa; text-decoration: none; } .newsletter-banner-content a:hover { text-decoration: underline; } .newsletter-banner-content img { max-width: 100%; height: auto; margin: 10px 0; } #mc_embed_signup #mce-success-response { color: #0356a5; display: none; margin: 0 0 10px; width: 100%; } #mc_embed_signup div#mce-responses { float: left; top: -1.4em; padding: 0; overflow: hidden; width: 100%; margin: 0; clear: both; }
An email shared by Byrne appears to show Ofcom again demanding payment, stating that the “penalty remains due and payable”, requesting payment within 14 days, and warning it was “considering taking further steps to recover the outstanding amount” if the money was not received.
4chan’s response to Ofcom noted: “As 4 chan has no assets in the United Kingdom…that would require you to show in a US court as a plaintiff, waive sovereign immunity, and overcome existing US doctrine regarding the non-enforcement of foreign regulatory penalties.” The letter added: We suspect that isn’t going to happen.”
Read more Royal Mail boss pay soars to £7m despite profit slip
It ended with: “In the words of Michael Jackson, just beat it.”
Long-running standoff over Online Safety Act
When Ofcom first attempted to collect the fine earlier this year, Byrne responded by emailing an AI-generated hamster. He later said the image was more than a joke, arguing that in US legal circles improperly served papers are often likened to “hamster bedding”.
4chan has repeatedly refused to pay, arguing it operates solely from the US and is protected by the First Amendment.
Speaking previously, Byrne said: “In the only country in which 4chan operates, the United States, it is breaking no law and indeed its conduct is expressly protected by the First Amendment.”
The case has become a test of how effectively the UK can enforce the Online Safety Act against overseas platforms. Ofcom has issued millions of pounds in fines under the legislation but has so far recovered only a small proportion, with the regulator previously confirming that just one company – Itai Tech – has paid its penalty in full after also blocking UK users.
The renewed payment demand also landed as Ofcom unveiled plans to expand its regulatory powers over the BBC’s online output, giving the watchdog enforceable oversight of content across the broadcaster’s websites, apps and social media for the first time.
Ofcom has been approached for comment.
Read more ‘Protecting children is right’: Starmer takes on Big Tech with social media ban for under-16s
Similarly tagged content: Sections Categories People & Organisations
