Ofcom Probes X Over Illegal Content Despite Faster Response Times
Britain’s media regulator Ofcom is continuing its investigation into Elon Musk’s social media platform X, warning that faster responses to user reports do not necessarily mean illegal content is being removed effectively. The update, issued on October 14, 2026, highlights a continuing challenge for social media companies: meeting response-time targets while ensuring that harmful and potentially illegal material is actually taken down.
X’s first quarterly report to Ofcom showed improvements in how quickly the platform reviewed reports of suspected illegal hate and terrorism-related content. The company met the response-time commitments it made to the regulator in May, but Ofcom said it still had concerns about the effectiveness of its moderation systems.
The investigation also covers issues connected to X’s handling of illegal content and complaints, following concerns over sexualised deepfake images generated or shared through its Grok artificial intelligence tools. The outcome could have implications for X, the wider AI industry and how digital platforms manage regulatory risk in the United Kingdom.
Why Ofcom Is Investigating X
Ofcom opened its formal investigation into X on January 12, 2026, under the UK's Online Safety Act 2023. The regulator is examining whether the platform has met its legal responsibilities relating to illegal content, risk assessments and protections for children.
The investigation followed reports that Grok was being used to create and distribute sexualised images of real people, including children, potentially amounting to illegal material. The concerns raised questions about the safeguards surrounding AI-generated imagery and the way content can spread across social networks.
Ofcom has been examining several areas, including how X assesses the risk of illegal material appearing on its service, how easily users can report suspected illegal content and how the platform responds to those reports.
The regulator has now narrowed the remaining focus of its investigation to X’s compliance with its illegal-content duties and its reporting and complaints obligations. It continues to monitor the effectiveness of age checks.
Importantly, the investigation is not a final finding that X has breached the law. Ofcom is still assessing the evidence to determine whether the company has fulfilled its legal obligations.
X Meets Response-Time Commitments, but Removal Effectiveness Remains Unclear
In May 2026, X committed to reviewing suspected illegal hate and terrorism-related content reported through its dedicated UK reporting tool within an average of 24 hours over a three-month period. It also agreed to review at least 85% of such reports within a maximum of 48 hours.
Ofcom’s October update said X’s first quarterly report appeared to show improved average response times and performance within the agreed timeframes. The regulator plans to cross-check the company’s figures against its own tests and expects X to sustain the improvements.
The distinction between reviewing content and removing it is central to the investigation. A platform can respond quickly to a report without necessarily making the correct moderation decision. Effective enforcement requires systems that identify illegal material, assess reports consistently and take appropriate action.
Ofcom also reported mixed evidence about X’s continued engagement with third-party experts, another area linked to its efforts to improve content moderation.
The regulator expects to provide another assessment early in 2027 after receiving additional performance data. That update could help clarify whether the initial improvement is sustained and whether the company is making progress on the wider effectiveness of its moderation processes.
Grok AI Faces Additional Restrictions in the UK
The investigation has also brought attention to Grok, the AI chatbot associated with X. Generative AI systems can create images and text in response to user instructions, but safeguards become particularly important when those capabilities can be used to produce non-consensual intimate imagery or sexualised depictions involving minors.
Following engagement with Ofcom, SpaceXAI, formerly known as xAI, introduced restrictions to its standalone Grok service for users in the UK.
According to Ofcom, UK users are restricted from viewing, generating or sharing pornographic content through the standalone service’s image-generation technology. The company also introduced measures intended to prevent companion chatbots, including Ani, from engaging in sexually explicit conversations with UK users.
These measures are separate from the regulator’s continuing assessment of X itself. Ofcom said gaps in the legal framework had limited its ability to investigate the creation of illegal images within the standalone Grok service under the original scope of its inquiry into X.
The restrictions are a significant compliance development, but their effectiveness will depend on implementation and enforcement. Regulators will need to assess whether safeguards work consistently in practice, rather than simply being announced.
For the broader AI industry, the case illustrates the growing importance of safety controls, age-related protections and mechanisms to prevent the misuse of image-generation tools.
What the UK Online Safety Act Means for X
The UK’s Online Safety Act 2023 places legal obligations on covered online services to assess and manage risks associated with illegal content. These obligations include taking proportionate measures to prevent users from encountering certain categories of illegal material, enabling users to report content and acting appropriately when violations are identified.
Ofcom has enforcement powers where companies fail to meet their obligations. Its published guidance states that qualifying breaches can attract fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater.
That is the statutory maximum, not a penalty already imposed on X in this investigation.
Ofcom must assess the evidence and follow the required legal process. If it finds reasonable grounds to believe that X has failed to comply with its duties, it can issue a provisional notice setting out its concerns and the evidence supporting them. X would then have an opportunity to respond before a final decision.
The distinction matters for businesses and investors. A regulator opening or continuing an investigation creates uncertainty, but it does not establish liability. Any financial consequences depend on the eventual findings and enforcement decision.
Business and Industry Implications
Although the immediate issue concerns online safety, the investigation has broader commercial implications.
Compliance costs: Social media platforms may need to invest in additional moderation staff, automated detection systems, reporting tools, age-assurance technology and independent testing. These investments can increase operating expenses, particularly when products operate across multiple countries with different legal requirements.
Product design: AI developers may have to build restrictions directly into image-generation systems and chatbot interactions. Controls that are effective in one jurisdiction may need to be adapted for other markets, increasing technical and compliance complexity.
Advertising and brand safety: Advertisers generally want their brands to appear alongside appropriate content. Concerns about illegal material can increase reputational risk and encourage closer scrutiny of a platform’s moderation performance. However, Ofcom’s latest update does not establish that advertisers have withdrawn spending because of this investigation.
Regulatory precedent: The case contributes to the evolving approach to online safety enforcement. Other platforms and AI companies will be watching how Ofcom assesses risk management, reporting systems and the practical effectiveness of safeguards.
For investors, the key consideration is whether regulatory obligations materially affect a company’s costs, product strategy, user trust or ability to operate in important markets. Those effects should be evaluated using verified financial disclosures and company-specific information rather than assumptions about the immediate impact of an investigation.
What Happens Next?
Three developments deserve attention.
First, Ofcom will compare X’s reported response-time performance with its own testing and review whether the improvements continue. Second, the regulator will assess the evidence concerning illegal-content moderation and determine whether X has complied with the relevant legal duties. Third, Ofcom will continue monitoring restrictions introduced for the standalone Grok service.
The next regulatory update, expected early in 2027 for X’s quarterly performance assessment, should provide further information about moderation outcomes. The timing and conclusions of any final enforcement decision remain uncertain.
Conclusion
Ofcom’s investigation highlights why faster responses alone are not enough to demonstrate effective online safety. X has met its agreed review-time commitments in its first quarterly report, but the regulator remains concerned about whether illegal hate and terrorism-related content is being removed effectively.
The outcome could influence X’s compliance costs, AI safety practices and the regulatory expectations facing digital platforms. For now, the central questions are whether the improvements can be sustained and whether Ofcom’s investigation identifies a breach of the law.
Follow the blog for more updates on technology, AI, business and global regulatory developments.
This article is for informational and educational purposes only and should not be considered investment advice.