Byrne & Storm, P.C. and Coleman Law, P.C. are pro bono counsel to 4chan Community Support LLC and Lolcow, LLC in this matter.

Yesterday, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed our clients’ service and constitutional claims against the UK Office of Communications (a/k/a “Ofcom”). These claims were dismissed not on the merits, but on the threshold matter of whether Ofcom, as an arm of a foreign state, is immune from the jurisdiction of American courts under the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

The Court, in its opinion, noted that American courts “generally decline to enforce foreign judgments that violate the United States Constitution,” and that, “at the risk of gilding the lily, to the extent any foreign judgment against Plaintiffs were penal in nature,” our clients “may find a receptive audience before American courts regardless of the judgment’s compatibility with the United States Constitution. That is because American courts are not necessarily required to enforce foreign penal judgments[.]”

Ofcom, having now successfully argued that it is a sovereign arm of the British state, will have a very difficult time arguing at some future date that its orders would be constitutional in the U.S., or that its fines are anything other than penal in nature. If Ofcom wishes to test this on the merits by waiving sovereign immunity and presenting itself to an American court as a plaintiff in an attempt to domesticate those orders, we will defend our client from any such attempt.

Ofcom had an opportunity to have that merits fight and defend the supposed legality of its orders in the U.S. with this litigation. Rather than have that discussion, Ofcom ducked behind sovereign immunity instead. Ofcom will never collect a penny of the fines it purported to impose on 4chan, nor compel 4chan to obey its orders. Nor will Ofcom ever compel our client Lolcow, LLC, which refused Ofcom’s assertions of jurisdiction outright and against which Ofcom, following those refusals, took no further action.

To Prevent Ofcom’s Threats from Chilling American Speech, Congress Must Act

Evidence shows that most American targets of Ofcom’s demands quietly surrender to its demands, rather than fight. Of 197 known orders Ofcom sent into the United States between January 2025 and March 2026, only four sites – all clients of this firm – publicly refused the orders. Only two – Lolcow and 4chan – sought to vindicate their rights in an American court. That is a 98% compliance rate, and it means that Ofcom’s threats, and the threats alone, are succeeding in censoring American speech, in most cases.

The Court did not hold that Ofcom’s conduct was lawful. It expressly declined to decide whether Ofcom violated our clients’ constitutional rights. What the Court held is narrower, and extremely troubling: that a foreign regulator may transmit threats of ruinous fines and imprisonment to Americans, on American soil, targeting speech the First Amendment protects, and that no American court has the power to hear a challenge to that conduct, no matter how unconstitutional or illegal those threats may be.

The Court was equally clear about where the remedy to Ofcom’s conduct lies. Sovereign immunity is a creation of Congress. As the Court observed, Congress “could, if it wished, subject foreign governments and their instrumentalities to suit in the United States.” Congress has done this before, and it is time for Congress to do so once again.

Two bills before the U.S. House of Representatives – the GRANITE Act, H.R. 10174, introduced by Rep. Michael Rulli on August 27th, and the HOMEFRONT Act, H.R. 10309, introduced by Rep. Warren Davidson on September 8th – would do exactly that, and also provide a statutory rule that U.S. courts will not recognize foreign censorship rulings, in all cases. These bills are designed to fix the structural flaw in foreign sovereign immunity law that Ofcom’s conduct exploits, and allow American citizens to obtain relief from American courts to affirmatively stop the continuing foreign censorship attempts that foreign states currently carry out on American territory.

State-level efforts are also underway to enact shield laws to protect Americans from Ofcom more clearly, in the form of the ALEC GRANITE Act model bill, the Wyoming GRANITE Act 2027 reintroduction, and the New Hampshire GRANITE Act. The Court’s ruling, however, makes clear that federal action is necessary and urgent.

Foreign regulators must not be allowed to claim the power to control constitutionally protected speech and conduct on American soil while remaining utterly immune from the jurisdiction of our courts. Under the rule announced yesterday, a foreign censor enjoys greater protection in an American courtroom than the American citizens it threatens with fines and arrest.

Ofcom claims to have the power to regulate American speech on American soil, but no American court has the ability to review the exercise of that power here.

This situation is lawless, and only Congress can fix it. The GRANITE and HOMEFRONT Acts are the way. Congress should schedule hearings and take up these bills without delay.

We are reviewing the decision and considering all options, including appeal.

The firm thanks its co-counsel, Ron Coleman of Coleman Law, P.C., whose work on this case was pro bono publico.