Britain seeks to regulate 'Big Tech'
The British Government has released plans for a comprehensive overhaul of how tech companies monitor user content – which could have global consequences. Here’s what users can expect.

The British Government has released plans for a comprehensive overhaul of how tech companies monitor user content. In an effort to combat a rise in digital crime and the spread of harmful content, the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport released a draft Online Safety Bill in the middle of 2021. Since its release the Bill has undergone a radical redrafting in the hope that Britain can become the “safest place in the world to go online”.
While the Bill will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and likely amendment, the key aspects of the current draft of the Bill are:
Tech companies will have a duty of care to protect users from harmful content by:
- preventing illegal content and activity online (like terrorism and fraud);
- ensuring children are not exposed to inappropriate content; and
- for ‘Category 1’ companies only (such as Twitter and Facebook), monitoring and removing legal but harmful content. These companies will be required to set out in their terms of services how such content will be dealt with. The Government has also signalled that it will provide additional guidance on this via additional legislation.
There is support for increased responsibilities, but the idea that harmful content that is otherwise legal must be removed has been met with significant concern. The Government has tried to counter this concern by introducing a right of appeal for users who feel their content has been removed unfairly.
The legislation will create three new specific online offences. These offences are:
- Banning the posting or sending of a threatening message that expresses a threat of serious harm. This is intended to better capture online threats to kill or cause serious harm and will carry a sentence of up to five years imprisonment.
- Making it illegal to send a communication that is intended to cause psychological harm. This offence will carry a prison sentence of up to two years and is aimed at criminalising social media “pile-on’s” (where online hate is directed at an individual).
- Preventing the deliberate sending of false messages that have the intention of causing harm (such as bomb hoaxes). This will carry a prison sentence of up to 51 weeks.
Online platform providers will be expected to do more to protect users from fraudulent adverts and scams. Some providers will also be required to carry out age checks on restricted content – this fulfils a long time British Government commitment to restrict the viewing of certain content.
It is intended that Ofcom, Britain’s communications regulator, will be responsible for policing the regulatory requirements and will have the power to fine a breaching technology company up to 10% of the offending company’s global turnover. Ofcom will also have the ability to prosecute company executives where they fail to comply with regulatory requests. If liable, executives could face a penalty of up to two years imprisonment.
The proposals have received criticism in Britain, with one Government MP labelling it a “censor’s charter”. However, the Bill is yet another recent example of global attempts to impose new regulations on technology companies. Late last year, the Australian Government announced its intention to introduce legislation that would force social media companies operating in Australia to collect the personal details of all users. Companies would also be required to have an established complaints process where users can ask for content to be taken down if they consider it defamatory – if a post is not removed, then the social media company can be compelled by court order to reveal a user’s identity. More recently the US President, Joe Biden, has urged Congress to introduce legislation that would strengthen privacy protections and prohibit companies from collecting children’s personal information.
We have not seen any similar proposed regulatory changes in New Zealand, but we would expect that as other like-minded countries impose restrictions, we will see similar actions taken here. We will keep you updated on any developments.
Services in this insight
Modern slavery regulation on the way – Is your business ready?
From Hertzian waves to hyperlinks – What the BSA’s online decision means for your business
Space Law in New Zealand — Signals from the ground
Cyber security changes flagged for New Zealand
The four Cs of successful fintech partnerships
New rule 3A introduced to the Biometric Processing Privacy Code
IPP3A is nearly in force – What agencies need to know
OPC shifts public enquiries online – What agencies should do now
AI as a confidante? Legal privilege and the ever-increasing use of AI
New Therapeutic and Health Advertising Code – What you need to know
Building blocks of trade mark law: New Zealand approach to "use as a trade mark" now compatible with Australia
Consumer law update 2025
Open banking launches in New Zealand
Is fair something to fear? The Government announces beefed-up Fair Trading Act
Is it fair? Lessons from Bartz v Anthropic and Kadrey v Meta
Open banking almost live
Why New Zealand businesses should care about the EU Data Act
Product labelling changes flagged for New Zealand
Biometric Processing Privacy Code 2025 introduced to New Zealand
Open banking regulations released for consultation
Ten tips for buy-side M&A success
A recipe for disaster – Is caramel a copyright work?
Becoming a Globally Renowned Fintech Nation (and how regulation can light the path)
Important changes made to the Privacy Act
New Zealand may ban social media for young users
Customer and Product Data Act update – Open banking officially on the way
Tips from the trenches – Your AI policy cheat sheet
Significant regulatory reform proposed for New Zealand media
Security guidance released for emerging tech companies
Customer and Product Data Bill – Select Committee reports back
Consumer law update 2024
New Zealand’s Artist Resale Royalty is ready to go
The shape of coffee – “Moccona” vs “Vittoria”
New Zealand’s Copyright Act gets a sense of humour
WIPO’s traditional knowledge treaty is adopted
Doing business in the Middle East
AI and advertising – What producers need to know
Seven contract clauses every freelancer needs
Baby Reindeer – When truth is stranger than fiction?
Our comments on the Biometric Processing Privacy Code
Therapeutic Products Act to be repealed this year
Is End-to-End to end?
Geographical indications – Changes uncorked by the EU-NZ Fair Trade Agreement
Lawyers and Generative AI – New NZ Law Society guidance released
Facing the future – A biometrics code of practice for New Zealand?
Deepfakes and style mimicking – Should New Zealand adopt a right of publicity?
Five Eyes release the Five Principles to Secure Innovation
The copyright conundrum with generative AI
Innovate at the speed of trust – Privacy Commissioner releases new guidance on artificial intelligence tools
Political advertising on social media: sludge or copyright quagmire?
Privacy Amendment Bill introduced to Parliament
New Data Privacy Framework: Meta gets a lifeline
The long and winding road to royalties
Implications of the Supreme Court’s “new debt” approach in Mainzeal
EU gets closer to AI laws
UK Supreme Court puts Quincecare ‘duty’ back in its box
A Deep Dive into The Customer and Product Data Bill
Searching for a shield: Meta’s €1.2 billion fine and international transfers in the age of Big Data
New NZ-UK Free Trade Agreement signals tech, media and IP law changes
Ditch the fax! Tips for building a tech-savvy law firm
The Incorporated Societies Act 2022 – what you need to know for your society
Common myths about copyright online
Artificial artist, or artificial plagiarist?
Big boost to gaming
Is your product “AI powered”?
The latest on New Zealand’s Consumer Data Right
Space Law in New Zealand
You Cannot Defame the Dead or Can You? Tikanga Māori and NZ Defamation Law
Open Banking is coming – through the Consumer Data Right
Massive SEC Fines for Companies Using Text and Instant Messaging
One Act to Rule Them All
A Legal Guide to Kicking SaaS
Potential changes to the Privacy Act 2020
NZ's Social Media "Code of Practice" Launched
Are you being unfair?
Are you legal?
Power Up 2022
A new Companies Office levy is one step closer
Has Paramount Pictures gone maverick?
From Russia with love: The ‘other’ Russian conflict targeting intellectual property owners
I'm back, baby
Retail Payment System Act 2022 now in force
Paying the price for getting privacy wrong
Can AI be an inventor?
Finfluencer Crackdown
TIN Fintech Insights Report Launch
Britain seeks to regulate 'Big Tech'
Disclosure of personal information - how to, not don't do
The Spice May Flow, But The Copyright Doesn’t
Sound Recording Ownership (Taylor's Version)
The Lowdown (and Lockdown) on Summer Clerkships
Building Blocks of Trust
Firm News | Legal Rankings
Buy Now, Regulate Soon
Ten simple things
Funding the Future
Cyber Security for Start-ups
Fit for purchase
The Screen Industry Workers Bill
UK/New Zealand Trade Deal Takes Flight
Other articles you
might like
Negotiating a fintech partnership agreement is not a zero sum game.
New rule 3A means individuals must be notified about indirect collection under the Biometric Processing Privacy Code 2025.
The official commencement of open banking in New Zealand is a significant milestone for the local industry.















%20(2).jpg)