Wikipedia is taking legal action against the new Online Security Act regulations and says it could threaten the safety of its volunteer editors and its ability to keep harmful content away from the scene.

The Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit that supports online encyclopedias - is seeking judicial review of the rules, which could mean Wikipedia is under the toughest responsibilities required by the bill.

"Unfortunately, we must now defend the privacy and security of Wikipedia volunteer editors to avoid flawed legislation," said lead attorney Phil Bradley-Schmieg.

The government told the BBC that it has committed to enforcing the bill but was unable to comment on ongoing legal proceedings.

It is believed that this is the first judicial review proposed against the new online security law - although part of it - but experts say this may not be the last.

Ben Packer, a partner at the law firm Linklaters, told the BBC, "The Online Security Act is very broad and very complex."

He told the BBC that the law inevitably had an impact on British citizens’ freedom of speech and other human rights, so with more implementation “we can expect more challenges that could be faced”.

These will exacerbate a range of challenges the bill has faced, from claiming its heavy rules that force harmless small websites to close down – those who debate the law and its enforcement are too weak to fit the job.

The Online Security Act requires regulator OFCOM to classify platforms based on its size and its potential to cause user harm.

The specified "Category 1" (highest level) will face additional responsibilities to ensure user safety.

In very simple terms, if a website allows millions of UK users to interact and share content, and has a system of suggested content, it is most likely to be classified as category 1.

These rules were originally intended to target services where UK users are most likely to encounter harmful content – ​​but Wikipedia fears they are so vaguely defined that their “significant risks” will be included in Category 1.

The foundation believes that if this happens, the consequences of volunteers who write and edit articles can be serious and will surpass the UK.

It has raised other responsibilities that may actually require the site to verify the identity of its volunteers - it fears that it will expose them to data breaches, stalking, annoying litigation, and even imprisonment of authoritarian regimes.

Rebecca Mackinnon told the BBC that we will be forced to collect data about contributors, which will harm their privacy and security, which means people will feel insecure like contributors. ”

“We have seen in other parts of the world that when people contribute unsafe to Wikipedia, then they shy away from controversial topics that can be challenging for powerful people, which reduces the quality and practicality of the encyclopedia”.

Wikimedia Foundation stressed that it is not about challenging the OSA roughly, or there should be an idea that Class 1 services should comply with additional responsibilities.

Instead, it is part of the challenge of what is called “classification regulations” that sets out how regulator Ofcom will decide which sites must comply with the strictest responsibilities.

It argues that, as currently defined, they not only risk inappropriately capturing sites like Wikipedia, but they also lack certain platforms that should adhere to more difficult rules.

Phil Bradley-Schmieg wrote in a blog post: “Regulations are not only risky to over-regulate low risks.”

“As designed, regulations will not capture many of the services that British society actually focuses on, such as the hate websites of misogynistic people”.

The foundation believes that its volunteers have done effective work to keep harmful content away from the platform.

Volunteers are working daytime and daytime to provide reliable and neutral information Bradley-Schmieg wrote, following the Southport murder in 2024.

Ben Packer believes the foundation will have a high standard that can convince the court that the Secretary of State has adopted illegal statutes.

"It is often difficult to succeed in judicial review," he told BBC News.

He noted: "Here, Wikimedia will challenge the challenging regulations for the development of OFCOM's recommendations under the recommendations of OFCOM.

Ofcom has not classified any services yet, but has requested information from many sites, including Wikipedia, and is waiting for a response.

It said in a statement: "We noted that the Wikimedia Foundation decided to propose a classification regulation formulated by the Secretary of State under the Online Security Act. ”