A Republican ally of President Donald Trump has introduced legislation aimed directly at preventing American courts from recognising or enforcing penalties imposed by foreign online regulators, opening a new front in the growing transatlantic dispute over Britain's Online Safety Act.
Ohio Congressman Michael Rulli has introduced the GRANITE Act — the Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion Act — amid mounting criticism in the United States of attempts by Ofcom to regulate American websites serving users in Britain.
The proposal would create a route for Americans and US companies targeted by foreign speech-related judgments or penalties to ask an American court to declare them unenforceable in the United States.
Rulli argues that foreign governments should not be able to dictate the speech rights of Americans and has presented the measure as a defence of the First Amendment against overseas regulation.
The bill has not become US law and its passage through Congress is not guaranteed. But its introduction marks a significant escalation in the political challenge to Britain's online safety regime from Washington.
Bill targets foreign online-speech penalties
The GRANITE Act is aimed at stopping US courts from recognising or enforcing foreign judgments connected to online speech where those judgments conflict with American constitutional protections.
Its immediate political target is Britain's Online Safety Act and the enforcement powers exercised by Ofcom against overseas websites accessible to users in the UK.
According to The Times, Rulli said foreign governments should not be permitted to determine what Americans can say online and argued that the First Amendment must be protected from international regulatory action.
The legislation would not repeal the Online Safety Act, prevent Ofcom regulating services offered to people in Britain or automatically cancel penalties imposed under British law.
Its significance lies instead in whether those penalties could be recognised or collected through the American legal system.
Ofcom's 4chan action at centre of dispute
The transatlantic row has been brought sharply into focus by Ofcom's enforcement action against the US-based discussion website 4chan.
On 19 March 2026, Ofcom imposed three penalties totalling £520,000 over breaches of the Online Safety Act.
The regulator fined 4chan £450,000 for failing to use highly effective age assurance to prevent children encountering pornographic content, £50,000 for failing to carry out a suitable and sufficient illegal-content risk assessment, and £20,000 for failing to set out in its terms of service how users would be protected from illegal content.
Those penalties were separate from an earlier £20,000 fine imposed over failures to comply with statutory information requests. By June, Ofcom described the total fines imposed on 4chan under its enforcement action as £540,000.
Ofcom's position is that services falling within the scope of the Online Safety Act must comply with British law when serving users in the United Kingdom, regardless of where the provider itself is based.
What the GRANITE Act would — and would not — do
Rulli's proposal is important because it targets the point at which British regulatory action could cross into the American legal system.
If enacted, the measure could give US-based companies a mechanism for resisting attempts to have certain foreign speech-related judgments recognised or enforced against them in America.
That could become particularly significant where a British regulator sought to recover financial penalties from a company whose principal assets and operations were based in the United States.
But the legislation would not give American companies an automatic right to ignore British law while continuing to operate freely in the UK.
Ofcom retains domestic enforcement powers, and in the most serious cases it can seek court orders requiring third parties to disrupt the activities of a non-compliant service in Britain.
Ofcom can seek to block services in Britain
Ofcom says that where serious non-compliance continues it can apply to a court for measures requiring third parties to withdraw services from, or block UK access to, a regulated platform.
Those third parties can include internet service providers as well as payment or advertising providers.
That means even if US legislation eventually made it harder to collect British fines through American courts, the regulator could still have powerful tools available within the United Kingdom.
The developing dispute therefore raises two separate questions: whether Britain can regulate overseas websites serving British users, and whether the United States should assist in enforcing the resulting financial penalties against American companies.
Growing free-speech clash between London and Washington
The GRANITE Act comes amid a broader Republican backlash against European and British online-speech regulation.
Supporters of Rulli's approach argue that foreign governments should not be able to export speech restrictions into the United States or use financial penalties to pressure American companies into following standards that would conflict with First Amendment protections at home.
Supporters of the Online Safety Act make the opposite jurisdictional argument: companies choosing to provide services to people in Britain should be required to comply with laws passed by the British Parliament, just as overseas businesses operating in other regulated sectors are required to observe UK rules.
The tension between those positions is now moving beyond political rhetoric and into proposed legislation.
Trump administration support reported
The Times reports that the broader effort to resist foreign online-speech regulation has support within the Trump administration and that related legislative ideas are also circulating among members of the House Judiciary Committee.
That does not mean the GRANITE Act itself is certain to pass, and no final congressional outcome has been determined.
But support for the underlying principle inside Republican circles gives the proposal significance beyond a single congressman's bill.
If Washington ultimately adopts legislation preventing American courts from enforcing certain foreign internet-regulation penalties, Britain's Online Safety Act could become the centre of a much larger dispute over jurisdiction and national sovereignty.
Online Safety Act becoming international issue
Britain's online safety regime was designed to protect users in the UK, particularly children, and Parliament deliberately gave Ofcom powers capable of reaching services headquartered overseas where they have links to the British market.
That model becomes harder to enforce when the targeted company has few assets in Britain and its home country is unwilling to recognise the regulator's penalties.
The GRANITE Act therefore attacks one of the most sensitive practical questions surrounding cross-border internet regulation: what happens when two democracies apply fundamentally different legal standards to the same global service?
Britain can insist that platforms serving British users obey British rules. The United States can insist that its own courts should not enforce foreign judgments that conflict with American constitutional protections.
If both positions harden, the outcome may be less a question of which country can impose its law globally than which country can control access, assets and enforcement inside its own borders.
Bill is a warning to Westminster
The GRANITE Act remains a proposal rather than enacted American law, and it would be premature to claim that British Online Safety Act fines have already been made unenforceable in the United States.
But its introduction is nevertheless politically significant.
Opposition to Britain's approach to online regulation is no longer confined to technology companies, campaign groups or court challenges.
It has now reached the United States Congress in the form of legislation explicitly aimed at frustrating the enforcement of foreign online-speech penalties.
For Westminster and Ofcom, that is a warning that the next battle over the Online Safety Act may not take place solely in British courts.
It may take place in Washington.
Sources
- The Times: Trump ally issues bill to exempt US websites from British regulators
- Ofcom: 4chan fined £450,000 for not protecting children from online pornography
- Ofcom: Investigation into 4chan and its compliance with the Online Safety Act
- Ofcom: Online Safety industry bulletin — June 2026
- UK legislation: Online Safety Act 2023