- The non -profit group behind Wikipedia has lost its legal challenge against online security law
- The Wikimedia Foundation opposes the possibility of being subject to the strictest rules
- The Superior Court of London said that the decision is not a “green light” so that ofcom implies new rules if they prevent Wikipedia operations
The non -profit organization behind Wikipedia has lost its legal fight against online security law, but may still be on the right path to resist mandatory age controls.
On Monday, August 11, 2025, the London Superior Court dismissed the judicial review that the Wikimedia Foundation issued in May to challenge the categorization under the next implementation of the law.
However, the judge emphasized that the decision does not give “ofcom and the Secretary of State a green light to implement a regime that would significantly prevent Wikipedia operations”, thus leaving space for an additional legal appeal.
No age checks on Wikipedia – for now
As of July 25, 2025, all online platforms are required that show materials only for adults or potentially harmful to verify the age of their users before allowing them to access that content.
In addition to the most obvious names, social networks applications such as Reddit, X or Bluesky, appointment applications such as Grindr and even the giant music transmission spotify are among the websites that may not be affected by the age verification.
This is because, under the last implementation of the online security law, these platforms fall into category 1 of the scope of the law. This categorization requires that suppliers follow the strictest rules, including the duty to take care of the minors of the so -called “legal but harmful content.”
This is exactly what Wikipedia is worried, and tried to challenge in court. The group has argued, in fact, that forcing its voluntary taxpayers from the United Kingdom to be verified would undermine their privacy, security, freedom of expression and association rights.
When commenting on Monday’s ruling, the Wikimedia Foundation said: “While the decision does not provide the immediate legal protections for Wikipedia that we expected, the court ruling emphasized the responsibility of ofcom and the United Kingdom government to ensure that Wikipedia is protected as the year is implemented.”
Could the Wikipedia case establish a precedent?
Although the objective of the United Kingdom online security act from protecting children online is certainly crucial, its implementation has so far encountered a strong reaction among technologists, politicians and everyday users equally.
Privacy experts are especially concerned about how current United Kingdom verification solutions could lead to data violations and misuse. Others also care about “a risk of overreach” that could lead to undermine people’s rights to freedom of expression and access to information.
While calling to repeal the online security law, millions of British have also resorted to the best VPN applications to avoid giving their most confidential data to access a large amount of content on the web.
If other suppliers could (and will) follow the legal path of Wikipedia is too early to know. However, this development certainly opens a precedent for similar platforms to challenge the categorization of the United Kingdom online security law.
