Wikipedia has lost its High Court challenge against the UK’s Online Safety Act, a ruling that could have far-reaching implications for how the online encyclopaedia operates in Britain and how the wider internet is regulated.

What Was the Challenge About?

The case was brought by the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organisation that runs Wikipedia, alongside a UK-based volunteer editor. Their legal challenge focused on a specific part of the Online Safety Act known as the Categorisation Regulations. These rules decide which websites and online services fall under the law’s most stringent requirements, known as Category 1.

Category 1 platforms face additional obligations designed to curb harmful online content. For example, they must put in place systems to prevent children from accessing illegal or harmful material, enforce stricter moderation policies, and verify the identities of contributors. For Wikipedia, which relies on anonymous and pseudonymous volunteers to write and update its 65 million articles across 300 languages, this requirement was seen as fundamentally incompatible with how the site functions.

Wikimedia argued that being classified as Category 1 would undermine the privacy of its 260,000 active volunteer editors worldwide, exposing them to risks ranging from harassment to potential prosecution in authoritarian countries. The Foundation also warned that complying with such rules would require major changes to Wikipedia’s open model and could restrict access for UK users, either by cutting off large parts of the site or disabling core editing functions.

Wikipedia’s Challenge Dismissed

The case was heard at the High Court of Justice in London in July, with the ruling delivered on 11 August. Mr Justice Johnson dismissed the challenge, ruling that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology had acted lawfully when deciding how the regulations should be applied.

The judge rejected Wikimedia’s claim that the rules were inherently irrational or too broad. However, the judgment stopped short of granting the government and Ofcom (the UK’s communications regulator) a “green light” to impose obligations that would significantly damage Wikipedia’s operations. Instead, the court emphasised that regulators still have a duty to ensure that public interest platforms such as Wikipedia are not unfairly harmed as the Act is implemented.

Wait Until Next Year

Importantly, Ofcom has not yet confirmed whether Wikipedia will be designated as a Category 1 service. That decision is expected later this year. The court noted that if Wikipedia is classified in this way and can no longer operate effectively, Wikimedia may have grounds to bring a fresh legal challenge.

What Happens Next?

For now, Wikipedia remains accessible to UK users as normal. However, the outcome of Ofcom’s categorisation process will be critical. If the encyclopaedia is placed in Category 1, the Foundation would face the unenviable choice of either overhauling its model by introducing identity checks for editors and stricter content controls or risking fines and potentially being blocked in the UK.

Will Keep Engaging With Ofcom and the Government

Wikimedia has said it will continue engaging with Ofcom and the government to find a workable solution. The Foundation also stressed that it views the ruling as a signal that regulators must tread carefully in applying the Act. The judgment recognised the “significant value” of Wikipedia and the risks to human rights if its contributors were forced to give up anonymity.

The UK government, however, welcomed the decision, arguing that the Act is essential for creating a safer online environment. Ministers have repeatedly said the law is not intended to target smaller or non-profit platforms, but rather to hold the largest and most influential services accountable.

Why Does This Matter for Wikipedia and the Internet?

At its core, this case reflects the tension between child safety and free knowledge online. Wikipedia is the fifth most visited website in the world, drawing more than 15 billion views every month. In the UK alone, its content is accessed hundreds of millions of times per month, including through school curricula such as the Welsh-language version, which is the most popular Welsh website globally.

The concern is that sweeping rules designed with large commercial platforms in mind, such as social media networks or adult content sites, could inadvertently capture collaborative knowledge projects. By forcing identity verification, the law could undermine the very openness and volunteer-driven nature that has made Wikipedia one of the most trusted sources of information.

Digital rights organisations have warned that the Act’s broad scope risks collateral damage. Groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Open Rights Group have argued that blanket obligations may erode free speech, privacy, and editorial independence. They note that anonymity is not just a shield for trolls, but a lifeline for vulnerable people, including dissidents, journalists, and LGBTQ+ individuals who may otherwise be unable to contribute safely.

What Do Privacy and Child Safety Advocates Say?

Privacy campaigners have said that forcing contributors to hand over identity documents or undergo verification could expose them to data breaches or surveillance. In the worst cases, it could make volunteers targets for legal action in countries with harsh censorship laws. For example, Robin Wilton of the Internet Society has warned that weakening online anonymity often “exposes everyone, not just bad actors”.

Child Safety Charities Pleased

On the other side of the debate, child safety charities have welcomed the Act, arguing that the internet has long lacked accountability. They believe stronger rules are necessary to protect young people from harmful material, ranging from self-harm forums to violent pornography. These groups argue that platforms with significant reach and influence (whether commercial or not) must share responsibility for ensuring that harmful content is not easily accessible.

The Wider Implications

The High Court’s decision has sparked broader debate about the future of the internet in the UK and beyond. For example, if Wikipedia is required to comply with obligations designed for commercial giants, it raises questions about whether other non-profit or community-led platforms could face similar challenges. Some small forum operators have already shut down message boards, citing an inability to pay for age verification systems or the risk of large fines.

For businesses, the ruling highlights the increasing complexity of operating online services in the UK. Companies that rely on Wikipedia as a knowledge resource, including schools, libraries, and media outlets, could face disruption if the site is restricted. More broadly, the case demonstrates how regulatory approaches intended to improve online safety may reshape the digital environment for all stakeholders, potentially reducing openness and participation in favour of stricter control.

In practical terms, Ofcom now faces the task of balancing the government’s safety objectives with the need to protect platforms that serve the public interest. The regulator’s decisions later this year will determine not only Wikipedia’s future in the UK but also how flexible the Online Safety Act can be in practice.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

What happens next will depend heavily on how Ofcom interprets its role. The court appears to have placed the responsibility squarely on the regulator to ensure that the Act is not applied in ways that damage public-interest resources such as Wikipedia. If Ofcom takes a strict line and categorises the site as Category 1, it would trigger requirements that may be unworkable for a volunteer-driven encyclopaedia. If it takes a more flexible approach, or recommends changes to Parliament, it could preserve both the goals of online safety and the principle of open access to knowledge.

For UK businesses, the outcome is likely to be more than a theoretical concern. For example, many companies, particularly in research, education, media and publishing, depend on Wikipedia as a readily accessible knowledge base. Any disruption to the platform’s availability could make training, communications and fact-checking more difficult. Schools and universities would also be affected if the site was restricted or stripped of key features. For firms operating online platforms themselves, the case is a reminder that compliance burdens are growing and that regulation designed for large tech firms can have unintended knock-on effects across the wider economy.

Campaigners argue that the stakes go further still. If collaborative projects such as Wikipedia are forced into compliance regimes built for social media giants, smaller online communities will almost certainly struggle to survive. That risks narrowing the diversity of online voices and discouraging innovation. On the other hand, advocates for stronger safety measures insist that the internet cannot continue to operate on principles designed in an earlier era, and that accountability must be applied across the board if young people are to be protected from harmful content.

The balance now lies in how regulators and government choose to enforce the Act. The High Court has made clear that there are limits to what can reasonably be demanded of platforms like Wikipedia. Whether those limits are respected will shape not only the future of the world’s largest encyclopaedia, but also the broader character of the internet in the UK.