Ofcom's own enforcement guidance offers a faster process for firms that stonewall its legal requests while children are at risk. Two porn sites stonewalled for the best part of a year, and both still got the standard timetable.
Estimated reading time: 6 minutes
In short. Ofcom's Online Safety Enforcement Guidance says that "a more expedited process" may be appropriate where a firm shows "a continuing failure" to comply with an information notice and that failure "is causing significant harm to citizens" (page 29) [3]. Two open cases under Ofcom's own age-assurance enforcement programme, against Web Prime Inc and the provider of porntrex.com, each show a statutory information notice that went unanswered for months on the regulator's own account [1] [2]. When Ofcom finally issued both firms a provisional notice of contravention on 29 September 2026, each case page records the same line: a period of "20 working days to make representations", the guidance's standard allowance, not the faster one it names for exactly this situation [1] [2]. Two documented mistakes: four stars.
Ofcom's Online Safety Enforcement Guidance sets out, in its own opening pages, how the regulator says it will behave: it will "take action where it is proportionate and appropriate, but with a willingness to intervene firmly, promptly and effectively when required" (page 3) [3]. Further in, the guidance gets specific about what "promptly" can mean when a company will not engage. Describing the usual 20-working-day period it gives a firm to respond to a provisional notice of contravention, it adds: "There may also be circumstances where a more expedited process is appropriate, for example, where we have reason to believe that there is a failure to comply with the requirements of an information notice which is hindering an investigation, or where we consider it is a continuing failure and is causing significant harm to citizens" (page 29) [3]. That is Ofcom's own description of a case that should move faster: a continuing, not one-off, failure to answer an information notice, where the underlying issue is causing significant harm to citizens.
Two live cases inside Ofcom's enforcement programme on age assurance for pornographic content match that description on Ofcom's own telling. Web Prime Inc, which operates anysex.com, fapality.com, mylust.com, xcafe.com and yourlust.com, has been under investigation since 10 September 2025 for its compliance with section 12 of the Online Safety Act, the duty to keep children from pornographic content through highly effective age assurance [1]. Ofcom issued Web Prime a formal information notice under section 100 of the Act on 18 February 2026. By 31 March 2026, the case page recorded that "we have not received a response to the information notice", and that Ofcom had "therefore now expanded this investigation to include considering whether Web Prime Inc has failed, or is failing, to comply with its duty to respond accurately to an information notice" [1]. The provider of porntrex.com and porntrex.tv shows the same pattern on a similar schedule: case opened 19 November 2025, an information notice issued 17 December 2025, and a 12 February 2026 update recording that "we have not received a response to the information notice" and that the investigation had been expanded on the same basis [2].
Neither case page records any further public step until 30 September 2026, when both announced that Ofcom had "provisionally determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe" each firm had failed to comply with section 12 and with section 102(8), the duty to respond accurately to a statutory information request, and had issued a provisional notice of contravention to each on 29 September 2026 [1] [2]. That is just under six months, by the case page's own dates, from Web Prime's recorded non-response to Ofcom's next public step on it, and about seven and a half months for Porntrex. Both periods sit entirely within the stretch the guidance itself calls a "continuing failure", and the duty both firms are accused of ignoring, keeping children away from pornography, is squarely the kind of thing the guidance has in mind when it refers to "significant harm to citizens" [3].
Having reached that point, both case pages use the same sentence to describe what happens next: "Web Prime will now have a period of 20 working days to make representations to Ofcom" and, for the other firm, "Porntrex will now have a period of 20 working days to make representations to Ofcom" [1] [2]. That is the guidance's own description of the typical period, offered to "the subject" of any case (page 29) [3]. Neither page mentions the expedited option the guidance names for exactly this scenario, and neither explains why the standard allowance was judged to fit a case the guidance's own words describe as a candidate for something faster.
The claims, tested
| The guidance's own words | What the case pages actually show | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| A "more expedited process" may apply to "a continuing failure" to comply with an information notice that "is causing significant harm to citizens" (page 29) [3] | Both Web Prime and Porntrex went unanswered on a statutory information notice for roughly six and seven and a half months respectively, on a duty whose purpose is keeping children from pornography [1] [2] | Both cases match the guidance's own description of when a faster process may apply; neither case page shows one being used |
| Ofcom will "intervene firmly, promptly and effectively when required" (page 3) [3] | Close to six months passed for Web Prime, and about seven and a half for Porntrex, between the recorded non-response and the next public step, with no further public update on either page in between [1] [2] | The published record does not show the promptness the guidance claims as its general approach |
| The subject of a provisional notice of contravention typically gets "a period of at least 20 working days" (page 29) [3] | Both case pages confirm exactly 20 working days was given, with no mention of the expedited alternative [1] [2] | The standard timetable was used in both cases the guidance's own wording singles out as candidates for something faster |
The mistakes, counted
Months passed between the recorded non-response and Ofcom's next public step, with the guidance's own promptness language unmet on the published record (1). Web Prime's case page shows no further public update between 31 March 2026, when Ofcom recorded "we have not received a response to the information notice", and 29 September 2026, when the provisional notice of contravention followed, just under six months later [1]. Porntrex's page shows the same gap from 12 February 2026 to 29 September 2026, about seven and a half months [2]. The guidance commits Ofcom to intervening "promptly" (page 3) [3]; neither published case page shows what, if anything, happened during either gap.
The guidance names an expedited process for exactly this situation, and neither case page shows it being used (2). Page 29 of the guidance offers "a more expedited process" where there is "a continuing failure" to comply with an information notice "causing significant harm to citizens" [3]. Both firms match that description on Ofcom's own case pages, and both were given the standard "20 working days to make representations" instead [1] [2].
Credit where due
Ofcom did not drop either case. Both firms now face a provisional finding that they failed on two separate duties, age assurance and cooperation with an information notice, and both provisional notices were published with the facts Ofcom says it relied on, giving each firm a real chance to answer before any final decision [1] [2]. The guidance itself is honest that the 20-working-day period can vary: "more complex cases may require a longer period", which cuts the other way from this piece's finding and shows the document is not simply picking the shortest route it can defend (page 29) [3]. This piece makes no finding about the competence or conduct of any named Ofcom official; the criticism is of the gap between the regulator's own published escalation criteria and the timetable actually used on the published record, not of any individual's judgement.
The star score counts two documented mistakes: the near six-month and seven-and-a-half-month gaps between each firm's recorded non-response to a statutory information notice and Ofcom's next public step, measured against the guidance's own commitment to intervene "promptly"; and the guidance's own expedited-process option for a "continuing failure... causing significant harm to citizens", which neither case page shows being used despite both cases matching that description on Ofcom's own words. Two mistakes in the 1-to-3 band: four stars; the bands are on the ratings page. This piece makes no finding that Web Prime Inc or the provider of porntrex.com has actually breached the Online Safety Act, a question still open pending representations and a final decision, and no finding about any named Ofcom official's conduct; the criticism is of the published timetable against the regulator's own published escalation criteria. Checked directly against both case pages and the Online Safety Enforcement Guidance PDF, all fetched 18 October 2026.
Sources
- Investigation into Web Prime Inc's compliance with the duty to prevent children from encountering pornographic content through the use of age assurance, Ofcom, published 11 September 2025, last updated 30 September 2026
- Investigation into the provider of www.porntrex.com's compliance with the duty to prevent children from encountering pornographic content through the use of age assurance, Ofcom, published 20 November 2025, last updated 30 September 2026
- Online Safety Enforcement Guidance, Ofcom, published 16 December 2024