Tertius News is an AI-native newsroom: an AI model reads the source articles linked below — on this story, all of them from one outlet — and extracts what that outlet reported, claim by claim. How this works →

Google denies breaching law by promoting suicide forum linked to 164 UK deaths

The UK's online safety regulator has fined the operator of a suicide forum linked to over 160 UK deaths, but the site remains accessible via VPN. Google denies breaching the Online Safety Act for still listing the site in search results, despite campaigners calling it a clear breach.

By Tertius News AI Desk 1 outlet · 2 articles Version 1 Coverage May 13–14, 2026 Published Aug 13

Lead

The UK's online safety regulator, Ofcom, has fined the US-based operator of a suicide forum implicated in more than 160 UK deaths, as the regulator seeks to force the site to comply with British law. Meanwhile, Google has denied breaching the Online Safety Act over its continued listing of the forum in search results, a move that campaigners say allows users to circumvent the block.

The fine of £950,000 was issued under the Online Safety Act, which criminalises intentionally encouraging or assisting suicide. Ofcom said the site remains accessible in the UK despite over a year of warnings, and that it presents a "material risk of significant harm" to UK users.

Coverage Comparison

Both reports from The Guardian highlight the regulatory action and Google's denial. The first focuses on the Ofcom fine and the site's continued availability, quoting online safety campaigners who criticise the regulator's pace. The second concentrates on Google's role, reporting that a link to the forum still appears in search results and that the Molly Rose Foundation has accused Google of a "clear cut breach" of the act. The Guardian notes that Ofcom has so far declined to act against Google.

Key Claims

Ofcom has fined the forum's operator £950,000 under the Online Safety Act, citing "serious and deliberate contraventions" and the "risk of fatal harm" to UK users. (Reported by both source articles.)

The forum is linked to over 160 UK deaths, according to multiple coroners' reports, as cited by campaigners and reported by The Guardian.

Despite warnings and previous blocking attempts, the site can be accessed in the UK without a VPN, and also via VPN when using Google's search listing. (The Guardian consistently reports this.)

Google has denied breaching the Online Safety Act, but a link to the forum still appears in Google search results. (Reported by a single Guardian article; not independently verified.)

The Molly Rose Foundation, an online safety charity, has accused Google of breaching the act and says Ofcom has declined to take action. (Reported by a single Guardian article; not independently verified.)

Perspectives

Ofcom's perspective: The regulator has been attempting to get the site to comply with UK law since last spring, achieving a temporary block in July and a mirror site takedown in November. The fine is part of preparations for a court order to require internet service providers to block the site if concerns are not fully addressed.

Google's response: The company has disputed claims that it breached the Online Safety Act, but details of its argument are not fully reported. It has not commented publicly on the specific accusation from the Molly Rose Foundation.

Campaigners' view: The Molly Rose Foundation and other advocates, including the Samaritans, have repeatedly called for stronger action. Andy Burrows, chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation, called the delay "appalling" and accused Ofcom of being slow, while also pointing to Google's listing as an ongoing risk.

The site's operator has previously restricted access to UK users citing "legal risks" under the Online Safety Act, but reportedly included the website's address in the message, which can be used to bypass the block via VPN. As of Wednesday, the forum was unavailable, but its future accessibility remains uncertain.

As the situation develops, both the regulator and technology companies face scrutiny over how to balance legal obligations with practical enforcement of online safety measures.

How this outlet told it

The Guardian — World as of May 13, 2026, 12:46 PM UTC

Framing: Regulatory action against a harmful website — Critical of the site and Ofcom's handling

Facts Included:

A nihilistic internet suicide forum has been fined £950,000 by Ofcom
The forum is implicated in over 160 UK deaths
The site remains accessible in the UK despite warnings
Ofcom has been trying to get the site to obey British laws since last spring
The site can be used by people in the UK without a VPN
The fine is being levied under the Online Safety Act

Read the source article →

The Guardian — World as of May 14, 2026, 2:01 PM UTC

Framing: Google's role in promoting a harmful website — Critical of Google's handling

Facts Included:

Google has denied breaching the Online Safety Act
A link to the website still appears in Google's search results
The site can be accessed using VPN software
The Molly Rose Foundation has accused Google of breaching the act
Ofcom has declined to take action against Google

Read the source article →

What was claimed, and who backed it

Each row is one claim, attributed to the outlet whose wording states it most clearly. Confidence rates how directly the source text states the claim — explicit and unhedged rates high; hedged, pieced-together, or internally inconsistent statements rate lower. It does not measure whether the claim is true. Status counts the distinct outlets we found asserting it — so a single-source claim can still show high confidence, and a multi-source claim can show medium. Every one of those outlets is named beside the status, so you can check the count against the list. For claims extracted before we began storing that list, the row says so: it names the outlet the claim is quoted from and states that we have not recorded which outlets backed it. Outlets wrote at different times, so a figure that evolves — a casualty count, for example — can legitimately differ between rows; check the "as of" time next to each claim's source.

Claim	Confidence	Status
ClaimA nihilistic internet suicide forum has been fined £950,000 by Ofcom. The fine is being levied under the Online Safety Act.	ConfidenceHigh	StatusSingle-source via The Guardian — World as of May 13, 2026, 12:46 PM UTC
ClaimThe forum is implicated in over 160 UK deaths.	ConfidenceHigh	StatusSingle-source via The Guardian — World as of May 13, 2026, 12:46 PM UTC
ClaimThe site remains accessible in the UK despite warnings.	ConfidenceHigh	StatusSingle-source via The Guardian — World as of May 13, 2026, 12:46 PM UTC
ClaimOfcom has been trying to get the site to obey British laws since last spring.	ConfidenceHigh	StatusSingle-source via The Guardian — World as of May 13, 2026, 12:46 PM UTC
ClaimThe site can be used by people in the UK without a VPN.	ConfidenceHigh	StatusSingle-source via The Guardian — World as of May 13, 2026, 12:46 PM UTC
ClaimGoogle has denied breaching the Online Safety Act by promoting the suicide forum.	ConfidenceHigh	StatusSingle-source via The Guardian — World as of May 14, 2026, 2:01 PM UTC
ClaimA link to the website still appears in Google's search results, allowing users to access the site using VPN software.	ConfidenceHigh	StatusSingle-source via The Guardian — World as of May 14, 2026, 2:01 PM UTC
ClaimThe Molly Rose Foundation has accused Google of breaching the Online Safety Act.	ConfidenceHigh	StatusSingle-source via The Guardian — World as of May 14, 2026, 2:01 PM UTC
ClaimOfcom has declined to take action against Google.	ConfidenceHigh	StatusSingle-source via The Guardian — World as of May 14, 2026, 2:01 PM UTC

Transparency & Audit Trail

1 outlet · 2 articles consulted: The Guardian — World 9 claims extracted Version 1 Written 2026-08-13