Why New Internet Rules in the U.K. Are Stirring Backlash Among U.S. Politicians
GLOBAL EVENTS
On Friday, Vice President JD Vance began his visit to the U.K. with a sharp warning about what he described as online “censorship” in the country.
When Safety Meets Sovereignty: Why U.K.’s New Internet Rules Are Raising U.S. Political Hackles
In late 2025 (though the legislative groundwork was laid earlier), the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA) in the United Kingdom entered a phase of stronger enforcement that is sending ripples beyond British shores. While the stated goal is plainly laudable—protect children and vulnerable users online—it is the reach and mechanism of the Act that have triggered concern. In particular, U.S. politicians have sounded the alarm, arguing that the law now pulls American companies and citizens into a regulatory orbit they didn’t sign up for. Here’s a look at what’s going on, why the U.S. is bristling, and what I personally think about it.
What are the new U.K. internet rules?
The Online Safety Act, which was passed in 2023, began being enforced in earnest in mid-2025. (TechShout) Its key provisions:
Platforms accessible in the U.K. must prevent children from accessing certain categories of harmful content: pornography, extreme violence, self-harm, bullying, hate speech, and so on. (NBC New York)
A major feature: age-verification mechanisms for adult content sites and other “risky” content. For example, some websites now require ID scans, selfies, credit-card checks or third-party verification to prove age. (CNBC)
The U.K. regulator Ofcom has been given broad powers to enforce: massive fines (up to 10% of global turnover or ~£18 m, whichever is greater), blocking of services, and potentially even criminal sanctions for non-compliance. (TechShout)
Importantly, the rule doesn’t only apply to U.K.-based companies—it explicitly covers any service “capable of being accessed” by U.K. users, “targeting” U.K. users, or where there is a “material risk of significant harm” to U.K. residents. (NBC New York)
So, in other words, The U.K. is saying: “If you offer services that U.K. people can access, you need to play by our rules”. That extension of reach is part of what is causing the unease abroad.
Why U.S. politicians are reacting
Multiple U.S. lawmakers—across parties—have raised objections. As one article puts it:
“A growing number of U.S. politicians are condemning a new British law that requires some U.S. websites and apps to check the ages of users across the pond.” (NBC New York)
Here are the key concerns from the U.S. side:
Free speech / First Amendment risk: U.S. political figures argue that this law has the potential to chill freedom of expression—especially for American companies that might need to accommodate rules set by a foreign government. For example, J.D. Vance said he feared the U.K. was leading us down a “very dark path” of regulation that could undermine U.S. tech firms. (CNBC)
Another voice: Jim Jordan (House Judiciary Chairman) said the law has “a serious chilling effect on free expression and threatens the First Amendment rights of American citizens and companies.” (NBC New York)Jurisdictional overreach: The fact that the U.K. law can apply to any company accessible by U.K. users—even if based in the U.S.—is perceived as dangerous precedent. U.S. companies worry they might have to apply one set of rules for U.S. users and another for U.K. users, complicating operations and exposing them to foreign enforcement and fines. (DMR News)
Trade and competitive implications: Some U.S. tech companies fear they will be at a disadvantage if forced to comply with heavy verification burdens or privacy trade-offs, while non-U.S. companies less beholden to U.S. law might adapt differently. Also, the possibility of enforcement and fines by a foreign government may raise concerns about business risk.
Privacy and data concerns: While the law’s aim is safety, some critics in the U.S. worry that the mandatory age-verification systems—ID scans, selfies, credit cards—create a new set of privacy hazards, especially if data is stored, processed or exposed. (CNBC)
Put simply: U.S. politicians are objecting not because they oppose safety or protecting children online—but because they believe the U.K.’s approach complicates U.S. legal norms, places pressure on U.S. companies, and challenges the principle that American firms shouldn’t automatically be subject to foreign regulation in such a sweeping way.
Why the backlash in the U.K. matters (and overlaps)
It’s worth noting the U.K. backlash is not exclusively from the U.S. Many British users, platforms and privacy advocates also raise concerns. For example:
A petition asking for the repeal of the rules gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures within days of enforcement. (Sky News)
Critics say the age-verification systems are intrusive, require unnecessary personal data, drive users toward VPNs or the “dark web”, and may have unintended consequences. (CNBC)
There are concerns the regulation is overly broad: even small forums or platforms could be caught up in the regulatory drag. (TechRadar)
Thus the resistance from the U.S. side is somewhat aligned with concerns from the U.K.: both sets of critics worry about free speech, privacy, and the unintended consequences of a highly expansive law.
My take: Safety vs. sovereignty, and where I lean
On the one hand, I absolutely acknowledge the legitimacy and urgency of what the U.K. is trying to accomplish. Online harms are real: children being exposed to pornography, self-harm content, bullying, and disinformation. These are societal problems that self-regulation by tech firms has historically struggled to address. The U.K. government’s intent—to make the internet safer—is commendable and increasingly necessary.
However—and this is where my reservations come in—the way this law is structured raises significant questions about sovereignty, corporate burden, privacy, and collateral consequences.
First, when a country says “we are going to regulate any service you provide that’s accessible in our territory” and backs it up with huge fines or criminal sanctions, it effectively gives that country global regulatory reach. That could undermine the principle that companies, especially global ones, need coherent, predictable legal regimes, and that citizens are subject primarily to their home jurisdiction’s protections (or at least clear jurisdictional rules). If each country picks its own rules, companies may be caught in a regulatory tug-of-war, or worse, default to the most conservative regime globally—which could stifle innovation or free expression.
Second, the implementation risks unintended side-effects. Age-verification methods such as ID scans or selfies involve personal data collection, which raises privacy risks and data-breach potential. If users feel coerced into handing over sensitive info to access content, trust could erode—and some users will simply circumvent the rules (via VPNs, etc.). Indeed, reports indicate a rise in VPN usage in the U.K. after the new age-verification rules. (CNBC)
Third, the broad phrasing of what counts as “harmful” or “risky” content and how duties apply to platforms may incentivize over-censorship. Platforms might lean on the side of removal or restriction rather than risk fines—especially when facing ambiguous obligations. That can chill legitimate speech, especially on smaller or niche platforms. The U.S. politicians’ concerns about a “chilling effect” thus hold water.
Fourth, global companies already face myriad regulations across jurisdictions (privacy laws, content laws, competition laws). Layering a further regime, especially one with cross-border enforcement, raises complexity, cost, and perhaps some competitive distortions. Especially for U.S. firms operating internationally, differing obligations per country mean higher risk and higher compliance burden.
So where do I land? I believe the U.K. has a valid goal, but the regulatory design feels too heavy-handed and globally expansive without sufficient guardrails. I think a more nuanced approach might serve better:
Tiered regulation according to platform size and risk profile (large social media + adult sites vs. small forums)
Stronger privacy safeguards built into the verification process (minimise data collected, ensure secure storage, clear redress for misuse)
Clear jurisdictional boundary rationales—when and how a foreign service is subject to the U.K.’s rules, with transparent criteria
International coordination and harmonisation rather than unilateral reach—to avoid a spaghetti-web of conflicting obligations for global services
Continuous oversight for unintended consequences (VPN use, censorship creep, and under-served groups).
If the law can become more surgical, clearer, and internationally harmonised, it could strike a better balance between protecting users and protecting free speech, business flexibility, and jurisdictional clarity.
Why the U.S. resistance matters for everyone
From a bigger picture perspective, the U.S. political push-back matters for a few reasons:
Global tech companies are watching: If one country asserts global regulatory reach, others may follow. U.S. companies don’t want a proliferation of regimes each with unique rules.
Free-speech frameworks differ: U.S. constitutional free-speech law is quite robust. When U.S. firms face foreign laws that might restrict speech in ways the U.S. might deem unacceptable, tension arises.
Trade and diplomacy implications: If regulatory burdens on U.S. firms get too costly or burdensome, it can become a trade issue or diplomatic bargaining chip. The U.S. may push back, or companies may reconsider their global footprint.
Precedent for cross-border regulation: If the U.K. successfully enforces obligations on U.S. firms for U.K. users, it sets a precedent for extra-territorial regulation of the internet—raising questions about which country’s laws should apply, and how to coordinate among them.
Given the internet’s inherently cross-border nature, the regulatory model chosen by the U.K. could influence many other jurisdictions. U.S. politicians’ pushback is less about criticising the objective and more about the mechanism and scope.
Final thoughts
In the tug-of-war between safety and sovereignty, the U.K.’s Online Safety Act tries to tilt toward safety—but risks veering into an expansive model of external regulatory reach and obligation. U.S. politicians are reacting not out of disdain for protecting vulnerable users, but out of concern that the regulation imposes heavy burdens on U.S. firms, risks chilling speech, and sets global precedents for cross-border internet regulation.
My view is this: regulation of online harms is needed. But effective regulation must strike a balance—it must protect users and protect privacy, free expression, clarity for business, and respect for jurisdictional boundaries. The U.K.’s law raises the bar—but perhaps so high and so broadly that we now face a scenario where the cure may bring its own side-effects.
If I were advising any government (U.K., U.S., or others), I'd say: proceed with care, build in checks and re-evaluations, keep the scope proportionate and transparent. Because when you regulate the internet at this scale, you’re not just policing content—you’re shaping the future of how digital societies evolve.