Ofcom wants proof that X removes the illegal hate and terror posts it now reviews on time
Ofcom says X met its review-time targets but has not convinced it that illegal hate and terror posts come down. The Grok probe is moving toward a decision under rules that allow fines up to 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue.
The Investor · Invest desk
Key figures: X agreed to review reports from its UK reporting tool within an average of 24 hours and to resolve at least 85% within 48 hours over a three-month period; an 85% target allows up to 15% of reports to take longer than 48 hours.
| Figure | Value | Note | Claim |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average review time X agreed for UK reports | 24 hours | 3 | |
| Reports resolved within 48 hours, at least | 85% | target over a three-month period | 3 |
| Reports allowed to take longer than 48 hours, up to | 15% | under the 85% resolution target | 16 |
What happened
- In May, X committed to a three-month target for UK reports: an average review time of 24 hours, with at least 85% resolved inside 48 hours.
- Ofcom said: "We have ongoing concerns around the effectiveness of X's response to taking down illegal hate and terror content."
- Ofcom's separate Grok investigation began in January after reports the chatbot was used to create sexual images without consent, including images of children.
- If Ofcom finds reasonable grounds to suspect a breach, it issues provisional findings and X gets to respond before any final decision.
Why it matters
- What doesn't add up contradiction X's report proves the review times and Ofcom is asking about the outcome, so hitting every review deadline is not evidence that flagged posts come down.
- Who has to decide decision X's next report has to show removals as well as review times, because Ofcom will check the figures itself and publish again early next year.
- Who's exposed exposure Any penalty would be contested: X, Meta and TikTok have taken Ofcom's information powers to court, and Meta disputes how it calculates fees and penalties.
Next story · Leadership · 3d ago
Meta takes Ofcom to the High Court over group-wide revenue in Online Safety Act finesConfirmed2 publishers
The cap in the Online Safety Act is the higher of £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue [13], so the two limbs meet at £180 million of revenue (£18 million divided by 0.10) [15]. Above that line the percentage is the operative number. Ofcom described the Grok probe as still at the stage of assessing possible breaches of X's obligations [9].
The May targets measure review speed. The 85% limb allows up to 15% of reports to run past 48 hours [16]. According to Cryptopolitan's account of the update, Ofcom's concern goes beyond how fast reviews finish to what X does after them [12]. Ofcom also said it had "received mixed reports around the sustained delivery of X's commitment to engage with third-party experts" [7].
Our view is that the 10% ceiling is the distant end of this story and the nearer test is a removal figure. The account of the update does not report any removal numbers from either side, so the regulator's doubt is the only evidence on that point. Ofcom's phrases are "ongoing concerns" and "mixed reports", which fall short of a finding, and verified numbers could close the point. The two tracks could also merge. Once X limited pornography to age-verified accounts, Ofcom was able to focus on X's handling of illegal content and reporting tools [11]. The reporting tool is where the May review times were measured [3]. Or Ofcom could decide it has no reasonable grounds and issue no provisional findings.
We would be wrong if the assessment due early next year [5] shows flagged hate and terror posts coming down at the pace X's review times imply. Or if Ofcom closes the Grok assessment without provisional findings.
What to watch
- Whether Ofcom's assessment early next year, after it verifies X's figures, publishes removal data alongside review times.
- Whether Ofcom issues provisional findings in the Grok investigation, and what X says in response.
- The outcome of the court challenges by X, Meta and TikTok to Ofcom's information-gathering powers.
Information, not investment advice. This story is general information about companies and markets, drawn from cited reporting. It is not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security; check the cited sources before acting.
Clarity's read
What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.
Reality
- Evidence55
- Adoption
- Not scored
- Hype gap0
- Incentives
- Not scored
- Confidence70
Perspective Coverage
3 publishers- Builder
- Builder 19%
- Operator
- Operator 38%
- Investor
- Investor 43%
Claim ledger
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
- [1]
Ofcom said on Wednesday that X is reviewing reports of illegal hate and terror content faster but is still not convincing the regulator those posts are being removed.
- [2]
X's first quarterly performance report showed it had met deadlines for reviewing suspected illegal posts.
- [3]
In May, X agreed to review reports submitted through its UK reporting tool within an average of 24 hours and resolve at least 85% within 48 hours over a three-month period.
- [4]
Ofcom said X met both targets and processed reports faster than earlier in the year.
- [5]
Ofcom will independently verify the figures and publish another assessment early next year.
- [6]
Ofcom said: "We have ongoing concerns around the effectiveness of X's response to taking down illegal hate and terror content."
- [7]
Ofcom added that it had "received mixed reports around the sustained delivery of X's commitment to engage with third-party experts."
- [8]
Ofcom's separate investigation into X was launched in January after reports that its Grok chatbot was being used to create sexual images without consent, including images of children.
- [9]
Ofcom said it had gathered extensive evidence using its formal powers and was now assessing whether X had any possible breaches of its obligations under the Online Safety Act.
- [10]
If Ofcom finds reasonable grounds to suspect a breach, it will issue provisional findings and give X an opportunity to respond before reaching a final decision.
- [11]
Ofcom found during its probe that users without verified adult status could still access pornography on X; X has since limited access to age-verified accounts, allowing the regulator to focus on the platform's handling of illegal content and reporting tools.
- [12]
Ofcom's concern goes beyond how quickly reviews are completed; the regulator is more interested in what actions the platform takes after the reviews.
- [13]
Under the Online Safety Act, companies found in breach face fines of up to £18 million or 10% of their qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is higher.
- [14]
X, Meta and TikTok have recently challenged parts of Ofcom's powers to gather information in court, and Meta has separately contested how Ofcom calculates fees and penalties.
- [15]
The £18 million flat limb and the 10% limb of the cap are equal at £180 million of qualifying worldwide revenue.
- [16]
An 85% resolution target within 48 hours allows up to 15% of reports to take longer than 48 hours.
Sources
3 independent publishers whose own reporting we read for this story.
- cityam.comOfcom warns X over illegal content despite moderation improvements
1 article · October 14, 2026
- cryptopolitan.comUK regulator Ofcom claims there are still concerns over X's handling of illegal content
1 article · October 14, 2026
- thenextweb.comOfcom says it still has concerns over how X removes illegal hate content
1 article · October 14, 2026
Topics and entities
Topics
- Online Safety Act
- AI-generated deepfakes
- Content Moderation