Technically that’s down to Imgur. Basically the UK government told Imgur to stop selling children’s data to advertisers and Imgur was like “No, we’re going to keep doing that and you’re blocked”.
But, OFCOM basically said “Okay sure you can block the UK and that will stop you selling any children’s data going forward, but you still sold children’s data in the past, so the fine still stands” and now it’s kinda in limbo because Imgur doesn’t have a UK office so there’s nowhere to extract the money from. However, even if Imgur did introduce age assurance (which is increasingly likely given that Imgur is based in California and California is flirting with age assurance requirements too) and therefore would be in compliance with the Online Safety Act, they would still be fined because they failed to protect children’s data in the past.
Technically that’s down to Imgur. Basically the UK government told Imgur to stop selling children’s data to advertisers and Imgur was like “No, we’re going to keep doing that and you’re blocked”.
But, OFCOM basically said “Okay sure you can block the UK and that will stop you selling any children’s data going forward, but you still sold children’s data in the past, so the fine still stands” and now it’s kinda in limbo because Imgur doesn’t have a UK office so there’s nowhere to extract the money from. However, even if Imgur did introduce age assurance (which is increasingly likely given that Imgur is based in California and California is flirting with age assurance requirements too) and therefore would be in compliance with the Online Safety Act, they would still be fined because they failed to protect children’s data in the past.