Ofcom says nine high-risk websites are now safer for children, crediting its own enforcement work. Seven of the nine only blocked UK visitors, which the regulator's own words call an alternative to safety measures, not an example of one.
Estimated reading time: 6 minutes
In short. Ofcom's 28 August 2026 update, "UK children protected from more high-risk sites as a result of Ofcom action," says several sites "have either blocked the UK or deployed age checks as a direct result of work done by Ofcom's compliance teams" [[1]]. Its own breakdown shows two sites "implemented age assurance"; the other seven "have blocked access to people in the UK" [[1]]. The same update defines a UK IP block as something a provider can do "instead of putting safety measures in place" [[1]], yet counts it as an equal win alongside the two real checks, and names none of the nine sites. Eighteen days later, Ofcom's own Director of Enforcement told the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee that of the fines the regulator cites as proof its powers work, "realistically the majority have not been paid" [[2]]. Three documented mistakes: four stars.
Ofcom published its update on 28 August 2026 under the headline "UK children protected from more high-risk sites as a result of Ofcom action." It opens with a plain claim: "Several sites dedicated to hosting content harmful to children have either blocked the UK or deployed age checks as a direct result of work done by Ofcom's compliance teams" [[1]]. Read quickly, that sentence describes one outcome achieved two ways. Read against the rest of the page, it describes two different outcomes, only one of which the page itself treats as a safety measure.
Two sites, and then seven
The update gives its own breakdown. "Following the proactive work of our taskforce, two sites dedicated to hosting graphic violence and serious injury content have implemented age assurance to prevent access by UK children, as a direct result of our engagement with their providers. In addition, a further seven sites that pose a significant risk of harm to children have blocked access to people in the UK. This includes five sites dedicated to hosting graphic violence and serious injury content, and two dedicated to hosting suicide content" [[1]]. Two sites added a check. Seven sites blocked the UK outright.
The same page then explains what a UK block actually is, in its own words: "We have been clear that providers can prevent people in the UK from accessing their sites, such as by restricting access from UK IP addresses, known as a 'geoblock', as a way to protect UK users, instead of putting safety measures in place" [[1]]. That sentence draws the line itself: a geoblock is an alternative to a safety measure, not a form of one. Seven of the nine sites in the headline count sit on the "instead of" side of that line Ofcom drew in the same document. The page does not revisit the distinction when it adds all nine together under "children protected... as a direct result of Ofcom action."
None of the nine sites are named, so a reader cannot check which is which. That is a contrast with how Ofcom documents its other enforcement work on the same subject. Its 9 July 2026 decision against the provider of fapello.com names the site, states the fine (£600,000 for the age-check failure, a further £30,000 for not answering an information request), and records exactly what happened next: "Since Ofcom instigated formal enforcement action against this provider, it has 'geoblocked' access from UK IP addresses, meaning it is no longer directly available to people in the UK. We will continue to monitor the site for compliance" [[3]]. Fapello is not one of the nine sites in the 28 August update, but it is the regulator's most recent public statement of what a geoblock means for its own casework, and the answer is continued monitoring, not closure. The update does not say whether any of its unnamed seven are being monitored the same way, or whether Ofcom considers the matter settled.
A geoblock is also not the technical wall the word suggests. The Age Verification Providers Association, reviewing the fapello.com case, noted that Ofcom "has deliberately declined to decide whether geo-blocking is legally or technically sufficient to comply with the Online Safety Act," and pointed to data showing VPN use in the UK has risen sharply since the Act's child safety duties took effect [[4]]. A UK IP block stops a browser that has not taken the one extra step of switching its apparent location. It does not stop one that has.
The other claim on the same page
The update makes a second claim, about enforcement generally rather than these nine sites specifically: "In the first 18 months of the Act coming into force, we have investigated more than 100 platforms, and issued fines totalling more than £6 million against 10 providers... Formal enforcement action is one tool we use to bring companies into compliance, and we have shown we will use these powers where necessary" [[1]]. The sentence is doing a specific job: fines, cited as evidence that enforcement changes behaviour.
Eighteen days later, on 15 September 2026, Ofcom's own Director of Enforcement, Suzanne Cater, appeared before the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee and was asked about exactly that figure, by then grown to more than £7 million against 11 providers. Asked how much of it had actually been collected, she said: "realistically the majority have not been paid" [[2]]. Oliver Griffiths, Ofcom's Group Director for Online Safety, added that collection "looks acute at the moment" and would improve only once the regulator moves on to fining larger companies with assets in the UK to pursue [[2]]. A fine that is not paid has not yet changed anything; it is a number on a page until it is collected, and the regulator's own enforcement chief told Parliament most of them have not been.
The claims, tested
| The document's own words | What the record shows | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| "Several sites... have either blocked the UK or deployed age checks... as a direct result of work done by Ofcom's compliance teams," presented as nine sites made safer [[1]] | The same page says only 2 of the 9 "implemented age assurance"; the other 7 "blocked access," which the page separately defines as something done "instead of putting safety measures in place" [[1]] | Seven of the nine outcomes do not meet the page's own definition of a safety measure |
| "We have shown we will use these powers where necessary," citing £6 million in fines against 10 providers as proof enforcement works [[1]] | Ofcom's own Director of Enforcement told Parliament on 15 September 2026 that of the (by then) £7 million imposed, "realistically the majority have not been paid" [[2]] | The fines cited as proof of deterrence are, on the regulator's own account, largely uncollected |
Credit where due
The underlying programme is real, and the page is not vague about what it does. Ofcom names a dedicated taskforce, states it was built to target "small but high-risk services," and gives a specific, checkable breakdown of outcomes (2 age-assurance deployments, 5 graphic-violence geoblocks, 2 suicide-content geoblocks) rather than a single unexplained total [[1]]. The £600,000 and £30,000 fines against fapello.com, cited elsewhere on the same page as related content, are themselves fully named, dated and reasoned, with a quoted statement from the Director of Enforcement attached [[3]]. Where Ofcom names a provider and a decision, as it does for fapello.com, the claim can be checked in full. The gap is specific to the nine-site tally and the fines-as-deterrent framing, not to the regulator's enforcement record generally.
Verdict
Four stars, from three documented mistakes. Ofcom is not fabricating a programme; the taskforce, the fapello.com decision and the underlying fines are all real and independently checkable. What does not survive contact with the document's own words is the claim that nine sites were made safer "as a direct result of Ofcom action" in a way that treats a UK IP block, which the same page calls an alternative to a safety measure, as equivalent to an actual age check, while naming none of the nine so a reader could tell the difference. And the fines cited two sentences later as proof the regulator "will use these powers where necessary" turn out, by the regulator's own later account to Parliament, to be mostly unpaid.
The star score counts three documented mistakes. First, the update's headline framing credits nine sites as made safer "as a direct result of Ofcom action," but its own breakdown shows only 2 of the 9 installed an age check; the other 7 geoblocked the UK, which the same page separately defines as something done "instead of putting safety measures in place." Second, none of the nine sites are named, unlike Ofcom's own fapello.com and similar decisions, making the tally unverifiable by a reader. Third, the page cites more than £6 million in fines against 10 providers as evidence that "we have shown we will use these powers where necessary," but Ofcom's own Director of Enforcement told the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee on 15 September 2026 that "realistically the majority have not been paid." Three falls in the 1 to 3 band: four stars; the bands are on the ratings page. This piece makes no finding about the competence of any named Ofcom official; the criticism is of how the regulator's own published page defines and then blurs its own terms, not of any person's conduct. Checked directly against all four sources cited below, all fetched 11 October 2026; the House of Lords committee transcript itself returned HTTP 403 to an automated fetch (consistent with Parliament's bot-blocking of other automated clients) and is cited via The Register's named, dated report of the session instead.
Sources
- UK children protected from more high-risk sites as a result of Ofcom action, Ofcom, published 28 August 2026
- Ofcom discovers issuing Online Safety Act fines is easier than collecting them, The Register, published 17 September 2026, reporting oral evidence given by Ofcom to the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee on 15 September 2026
- Ofcom fines porn company £630,000 for age check failings, Ofcom, published 9 July 2026
- Ofcom fines geoblocked porn site, signaling tougher age assurance enforcement, Biometric Update, published August 2026