Money. Identity. Technology.
Follow the money. Find the decision.
Regulatory framework locating crisis decisions and safeguards within providers
Ofcom's 9 June 2026 crisis-response statement sets out a framework for in-scope providers responding to serious UK public-safety risks involving relevant illegal or child-harm content. The statement, laid draft code and eventual commencement are separate legal stages.
Providers determine whether criteria are met and act as soon as reasonably practicable, considering a section 175 notice alongside other indicators. Large in-scope services should offer a dedicated law-enforcement channel. Ofcom declined to extend formal contact obligations to NGOs, impose central cross-service coordination or require automatic submission and publication of every post-crisis analysis. Existing moderation, reporting, appeal, privacy and expression protections remain. The retained sources do not resolve final crisis-code commencement or establish a current activation.
Ofcom → Ofcom crisis protocol recommendations — June2026
2026-06-09 – 2026-06-09
The statement records requests for formal contacts and real-time access, encourages relevant collaboration, but declines extending formal contact obligations beyond police. This is a class-level disposition, not proof that every Full Fact data-access demand was individually resolved.
Ofcom crisis protocol recommendations — June2026 → Providers within crisis-measure scope
Providers use seriousUK-public-safety and relevant illegal/child-harm content indicators to determine a crisis, including linked overseas/local events. The framework is not a free-standing general misinformation intervention power.
Ofcom crisis protocol recommendations — June2026 → Existing moderation appeals, expression and privacy safeguards
Existing moderation/reporting/appeal, privacy and expression protections remain; no free-standing universal crisis appeal is created. Accuracy safeguards coexist with acknowledged possible false positives.
Ofcom crisis protocol recommendations — June2026 → Dedicated crisis law-enforcement channel
Large in-scope services should provide a dedicated law-enforcement channel after their own crisis determination. Smaller high-risk protocol scope does not automatically carry this channel requirement.
Ofcom → Ofcom crisis protocol recommendations — June2026
2026-06-09 – 2026-06-09
Ofcom declines central cross-service coordination and automatic submission/publication of every post-crisis analysis. It retains supervision/request powers; not every oversight request is rejected.
Providers within crisis-measure scope → Ofcom crisis protocol recommendations — June2026
The provider determines a crisis and chooses systems; action is as soon as reasonably practicable. A ministerial public statement notice is considered alongside indicators, not an automatic switch.
Ministerial-notice indicator — Ofcom-attributed change → Ofcom crisis protocol recommendations — June2026
2026-06-09 – 2026-06-09
Ofcom's attributed amendment requires considering the notice alongside other indicators. It does not transfer the provider's crisis determination wholesale to Full Fact, DSIT or the Secretary.
Ofcom → Ofcom crisis protocol recommendations — June2026
2026-06-09 – 2026-06-09
Ofcom's9June2026 statement sets a crisis framework; laid draft and later issue/commencement remain separate stages. No current activation is inferred.
Full Fact's request behind the ministerial-notice reference ↗
Crisis authority: inputs, decisions and the record left behind ↗
Full Fact seeks broader crisis scope, meaningful data access for accredited fact-checkers and stronger supervision. Ofcom retains a narrower formal channel and declines central coordination and routine submission of every analysis.
Open diagram →Ofcom attributes the notice-indicator amendment to Full Fact’s response and questions at an earlier DSIT meeting. Its FOI answer separately reports initial planning and a May 2026 approval window.
Open diagram →Section 175 gives the Secretary a direction route through Ofcom. A notice can require a public statement and information. The provider’s criteria-based crisis determination remains a separate decision.
Open diagram →Signals inform the provider, which determines activation and assembles its team. Large services have a specific police-channel recommendation. Providers retain analyses; Ofcom can seek them.
Open diagram →The crisis statement was published in June and children-code amendments were laid. Their source record does not resolve final crisis commencement. September’s NCII announcement supplies a different measure’s date.
Open diagram →Ofcom → published crisis protocol recommendations → Ofcom crisis protocol recommendations — June2026
2026-06-09 – 2026-06-09
Ofcom's9June2026 statement sets a crisis framework; laid draft and later issue/commencement remain separate stages. No current activation is inferred.
Ofcom crisis protocol recommendations — June2026 → recommends criteria-based crisis processes → Providers within crisis-measure scope
Providers use seriousUK-public-safety and relevant illegal/child-harm content indicators to determine a crisis, including linked overseas/local events. The framework is not a free-standing general misinformation intervention power.
Providers within crisis-measure scope → determines activation using relevant criteria → Ofcom crisis protocol recommendations — June2026
The provider determines a crisis and chooses systems; action is as soon as reasonably practicable. A ministerial public statement notice is considered alongside indicators, not an automatic switch.
Ministerial-notice indicator — Ofcom-attributed change → added consideration of a ministerial-notice indicator → Ofcom crisis protocol recommendations — June2026
2026-06-09 – 2026-06-09
Ofcom's attributed amendment requires considering the notice alongside other indicators. It does not transfer the provider's crisis determination wholesale to Full Fact, DSIT or the Secretary.
Ofcom crisis protocol recommendations — June2026 → recommends a dedicated channel for large services → Dedicated crisis law-enforcement channel
Large in-scope services should provide a dedicated law-enforcement channel after their own crisis determination. Smaller high-risk protocol scope does not automatically carry this channel requirement.
Ofcom → declined extending formal crisis-contact obligations to NGOs/fact-checkers → Ofcom crisis protocol recommendations — June2026
2026-06-09 – 2026-06-09
The statement records requests for formal contacts and real-time access, encourages relevant collaboration, but declines extending formal contact obligations beyond police. This is a class-level disposition, not proof that every Full Fact data-access demand was individually resolved.
Ofcom → declined a central coordinating role and routine analysis submission → Ofcom crisis protocol recommendations — June2026
2026-06-09 – 2026-06-09
Ofcom declines central cross-service coordination and automatic submission/publication of every post-crisis analysis. It retains supervision/request powers; not every oversight request is rejected.
Ofcom crisis protocol recommendations — June2026 → retains existing appeal, expression and privacy safeguards → Existing moderation appeals, expression and privacy safeguards
Existing moderation/reporting/appeal, privacy and expression protections remain; no free-standing universal crisis appeal is created. Accuracy safeguards coexist with acknowledged possible false positives.