- The non-profit group behind Wikipedia has lost its legal challenge against the online security law
- Wikimedia Foundation opposes the possibility of being exposed to the strictest rules
- London’s High Court said the decision is not a “green light” for ofcom to implement new rules if they hinder Wikipedia’s operations
The non-profit behind Wikipedia has lost its legal battle against the online security law-but it may still be on the right track to withstand mandatory age control.
On Monday, August 11, 2025, London’s High Court rejected the legal review of the Wikimedia Foundation issued in May to challenge the categorization during the upcoming implementation of the law.
However, the judge emphasized that the decision did not give the “ofcom and the Secretary of State a green light to implement a regime that would significantly prevent Wikipedia’s operations”, which gives room for additional legal use.
Not Age Control of Wikipedia – So far
As of July 25, 2025, all online platforms showing only adults or potentially harmful materials are required to verify their user’s age before giving them access to such content.
In addition to the most obvious names, apps on social media such as Reddit, X or Bluesky, dating apps such as grindr and even music -flowing are giant Spotify among the sites you may not expect to have been affected by age verification.
This is because these platforms, during the latest implementation of the Online -Security Act, fall into category 1 of the scope of the law. This categorization requires providers to follow the strictest rules, including a duty to protect minors from so -called “legal but harmful content.”
That’s exactly what Wikipedia is concerned about – and tried to challenge in court. In fact, the group has claimed that forcing its British volunteer contributors to be verified would undermine their rights to privacy, security, freedom of expression and association.
In a comment on the Monday decision, the Wikimedia Foundation said: “While the decision does not provide the immediate legal protection for Wikipedia, which we were hoping for, the court’s decision emphasized responsibility for OFCOM and the British government to ensure Wikipedia is protected when the OSA is implemented.”
Could the Wikipedia case set a precedent?
While the goal of the UK’s online security law on protection of children online is decisive, its implementation has so far been met with a strong setback among technologists, politicians and everyday users.
Privacy experts are particularly concerned about how Britain’s current age control solutions can lead to data and abuse violations. Others also care about “a risk of overreach” that may lead to undermining people’s rights to freedom of expression and access to information.
While calling on to cancel the online security law, millions of Britons have also approached the best VPN apps to avoid giving away their most sensitive data to access a variety of content online.
Whether other providers could (and will) follow Wikipedia’s legal path is too early to know. Nevertheless, this development definitely opens up a precedent for similar platforms to challenge Britain’s online Security Act’s categorization.
