Press

Families and Survivors to Prevent Online Suicide Harms (FS POSH), the coalition of bereaved families campaigning for accountability over the online forum and substance behind a known UK suicide route, today welcomed Ofcom's £950,000 fine of the forum's provider under the Online Safety Act.

The coalition said the regulator's decision was a vindication of years of work by bereaved families, survivors and supporting organisations, but warned that today's action does not address the wider failure of the cross-departmental response, leaves the forum operational, and strengthens, rather than weakens, the case for the statutory public inquiry the Government refused on 25 March 2026.

Quotes from bereaved family members are held pending each family's approval. Journalists can request the full text and attribution from the media contact above.

Coroners have raised concerns with Government departments about the forum and the related substance at least 65 times since 2019. Those warnings have been made to successive administrations. People have continued to die during that period. The forum has been named in approximately 30 Prevention of Future Death reports, and the substance is mentioned in at least 65.

Ofcom's formal investigation, the first ever opened under the Online Safety Act, was launched in April 2025 and took eleven months to reach a provisional decision. During that period, the forum's geoblock on UK users was found to have been circumvented via mirror sites (using VPNs) for at least four months before Samaritans alerted the regulator.

Ofcom has also today indicated that, if the provider does not come into compliance within ten working days, it is prepared to apply to a court for business disruption measures, which could require UK internet service providers to block access to the forum. The coalition welcomes this prospect. But even a court-ordered UK block, while significant, would address access to a single platform. It would not address the supply of the substance, the cross-departmental coordination failure, or the six-year failure to act on repeated coroner warnings.

The action taken today addresses a single platform under a single Act. It does not address the supply of the substance, the cross-departmental coordination failure since 2019, the absence of any published output from the Concerning Methods Working Group, or the Government's own admission, in its 25 March refusal letter, that departments have so far taken a cautious approach to publicly releasing details about action being taken.

The coalition has said the existing routes — Ofcom under the Online Safety Act, and the coronial system — cannot answer the wider question of how at least 65 coroner warnings, over six years, failed to produce a coordinated cross-departmental response. Only a statutory public inquiry under section 1 of the Inquiries Act 2005 has the power to do so. Solicitors Leigh Day, acting for the families, have said that the families are waiting for a meeting date with Ministers, and that a challenge in the High Court may follow if the refusal is maintained.

The case for an inquiry, in light of today's action

The coalition said the three reasons given by the Government for refusing a statutory public inquiry have each been weakened by today's announcement.

On speed. The Government argued in March that an inquiry would be not sufficiently quick or responsive. Ofcom's own investigation took eleven months to reach a provisional decision, and the forum remains operational. A focused inquiry modelled on Volume 1 of the Manchester Arena Inquiry could be faster than the trajectory now demonstrated by the regulatory route.

On contagion.The Government cited the WHO media-reporting guidelines as the basis for refusing to respond to an inquiry. Those guidelines address uncontrolled journalistic reporting, not statutory inquiry processes operating under the chair's directions, reporting restrictions and Samaritans-compliant publication protocols. An inquiry conducted under proper safeguards is not the same instrument as a news report.

On adequacy.Today's announcement is the clearest available evidence that the existing regulatory architecture, while welcome, cannot reach the full scope of the problem. The fine addresses one platform. It does not address supply, cross-departmental coordination, or the six-year failure to act on coroner warnings. The Government cannot simultaneously claim adequate action is being taken and concede that departments have taken a cautious approach to publicly releasing details of what that action is.

What the coalition is calling for

The coalition is calling on the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the Home Secretary, and the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to reverse the 25 March refusal and establish a statutory public inquiry under section 1 of the Inquiries Act 2005, with terms of reference covering the cross-departmental response since 2019 to the forum, the related substance, and the wider online suicide harm.

ENDS

Notes to editors

• About the coalition. Families and Survivors to Prevent Online Suicide Harms is a coalition of bereaved families and survivors campaigning for accountability over the online forums and related substances linked to deaths in the UK. The call for a statutory public inquiry is supported by the Molly Rose Foundation, INQUEST, CALM (the Campaign Against Living Miserably), the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, and The Jordan Legacy.
• Ofcom's announcement (13 May 2026). Ofcom today fined the provider of the online suicide forum £950,000 for breaches of the Online Safety Act, following a provisional decision issued on 27 February 2026. The regulator's Director of Enforcement stated that this is the full extent of the powers available to Ofcom under the Online Safety Act in this case. The investigation remains open and the provider has ten working days to come into compliance. Ofcom has also stated that, in the event of continued non-compliance, it is prepared to apply to a court for business disruption measures, which could require UK internet service providers to block access to the forum.
• The public inquiry request. Solicitors Leigh Day, on behalf of seven bereaved families and supporting organisations, wrote to the Government in October 2025 requesting a statutory public inquiry under section 1 of the Inquiries Act 2005. A joint ministerial response from DHSC, DSIT and the Home Office, dated 25 March 2026, refused the request on three grounds: speed, contagion risk, and the adequacy of existing measures. The coalition has six weeks remaining in which to consider its response to that refusal.
• The PFD record. Analysis by Molly Rose Foundation and Families and Survivors to Prevent Online Suicide Harms has identified that coroners have raised concerns with Government departments about the forum or related substance at least 65 times since 2019, in published Prevention of Future Death reports available through the Judicial Office at judiciary.uk.
• International context.The forum has previously been subject to access restrictions in other jurisdictions, including Italy, Germany and Turkey. UK action against a service targeting UK users is well-established in law and is not, contrary to the forum operator's public claims, an unprecedented assertion of jurisdiction.
• Safe messaging. In line with Samaritans Media Guidelines, the coalition does not name the forum, the substance, or the methods. We ask media partners to do the same. Anyone affected by the issues raised in this release can contact Samaritans free at any time on 116 123, or by email at jo@samaritans.org.

Media contact

David Standard, Standard Consulting.
david@standardconsulting.co.uk
07540 332 717

Spokespeople available for interview on request via the media contact above. Approved for release on behalf of Families and Survivors to Prevent Online Suicide Harms.