4CHAN COMMUNITY SUPPORT LLC and LOLCOW, LLC, d/b/a KIWI FARMS, Plaintiffs, v. THE UK OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS, a/k/a OFCOM

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

4CHAN COMMUNITY SUPPORT LLC v. UK OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS 1:25-cv-02880 — District Court, District of Columbia

  • Docket No.
    1:25-cv-02880
  • Court
    District Court, District of Columbia
  • Filed
    Aug 26, 2025
  • Nature of Suit
    440 Civil Rights: Other
  • Cause
    28:2201 Declaratory Judgment
  • Jurisdiction
    Federal Question
  • Jury Demand
    None
  • Last Filing
    Jan 15, 2026

Parties (3)

Parties
LOLCOW, LLC, UK OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS, 4CHAN COMMUNITY SUPPORT LLC

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 30)

# Date Description Filing
13 Jan 15, 2026 REPLY to opposition to motion re 8 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by UK OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS. (Kry, Robert) (Entered: 01/16/2026) PDF
— Jan 1, 2026 Set/Reset Deadlines
— Jan 1, 2026 Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 1/19/2026. (tj)
— Dec 31, 2025 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
— Dec 31, 2025 MINUTE ORDER granting 12 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on or before January 19, 2026. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 1/1/2026. (lcrc2)
View all 30 filings
George Lucas said:
Maybe I’m retarded but this does not at all seem like proper service. Even if the security guard is an employee of Ofcom, foreign process service is supposed to be done by a diplomatic process. Maybe I’m missing something, but it doesn’t look like that occurred? Just a standard process service with a British company. Isn’t there supposed to be a Central Authority involved to show the U.S. court that the process service was done according to treaty?
Click to expand...
Its "good enough". The security guard is probably a salaried employee, and other salaried employees saw the documents being presented. Its generally not a good idea too play patty cake with the court at that point. Especially if the subject of the lawsuit is a corporate entity. Its really frowned on for corporations too try and deliberately dodge process. Its one of those cases where the judge will allow email service or simply publishing the summons in a local newspaper if shenanigans continue. They could certainly try and play coy, but it just delays things.

May also depend on the local rules of service in England. International service is obnoxious for a variety of reasons. The UK may have there own particular rules for how a lawsuit has too be delivered that must be followed. But I would assume they were followed since a local process server was hired.
 
Last edited:
mindlessobserver said:
Its "good enough". The security guard is probably a salaried employee, and other salaried employees saw the documents being presented. Its generally not a good idea too play patty cake with the court at that point.
Click to expand...
They weren't willing to let some process server inside. Just outright refusing service would be frowned upon, so the security guard presumably took it to someone with the legal capacity to accept service.
KingFrampt said:
Hilarious how the "observe them through glass doors" is a standard British Official tactic, watch a Charlie Veitch vid they do it all the time
Click to expand...
It is truly a nation of pathetic, cowardly cucks.
 
So guy got doorcucked, couldn't get past a mall cop, and left a folder of paperwork on a coffee table outside the reception without telling anyone, and this is supposed to be total Aryan victory? Has he heard of mail?
 
Kola said:
So guy got doorcucked, couldn't get past a mall cop, and left a folder of paperwork on a coffee table outside the reception without telling anyone, and this is supposed to be total Aryan victory? Has he heard of mail?
Click to expand...
Can you even do service by mail? And can you even do service by foreign mail since it's so shit?
 
George Lucas said:
Even if the security guard is an employee of Ofcom, foreign process service is supposed to be done by a diplomatic process. Maybe I’m missing something, but it doesn’t look like that occurred?
Click to expand...
Yea imagine not following another countries legal process and bypassing it to do whatever the fuck you want. You'd have to be a massive cunt to do that.
 
DragoonSierra said:
Can you even do service by mail? And can you even do service by foreign mail since it's so shit?
Click to expand...
You can do service by whatever if the other party agrees to it or even flat out waives service.
 
AnOminous said:
You can do service by whatever if the other party agrees to it or even flat out waives service.
Click to expand...
This isn't true. If the other country is a party to the Hague Service Convention and objects to service by post (do note that service by email does not count as service by post), then you should not do service by post, otherwise you may have trouble enforcing any resulting judgment due to the improper service.

https://tlblog.org/a-primer-on-service-of-process/
 
The Thinking Abacus said:
This isn't true. If the other country is a party to the Hague Service Convention and objects to service by post (do note that service by email does not count as service by post), then you should not do service by post, otherwise you may have trouble enforcing any resulting judgment due to the improper service.

https://tlblog.org/a-primer-on-service-of-process/
Click to expand...
Based on this it does look like the Hague Service Convention applies, but I’m not knowledgeable to know if this service is compliant with it.
 
The Thinking Abacus said:
This isn't true. If the other country is a party to the Hague Service Convention and objects to service by post (do note that service by email does not count as service by post), then you should not do service by post, otherwise you may have trouble enforcing any resulting judgment due to the improper service.

https://tlblog.org/a-primer-on-service-of-process/
Click to expand...
Isn't that what I said? "Objects to service" pretty much means does not accept it. If they object to it they definitely have a point. I'm just not sure what they would want to achieve by doing that. This is a bureaucratic entity. It probably wants the issue resolved as quickly as possible too. Whatever the DJ is, it determines the legal landscape they are dealing with going forward, and it's better fighting us than Google on the issue.

(In any event this was neither service by mail nor service by email. It was service in person to a pretty questionable representative who was not qualified to accept service.)

They also have something to win in a determination that FSIA applies to them even when they're doing what they plan on doing in the future.

I honestly don't think they'll object to service, and if they do, it will be because they think they'll lose.
 
jxxyy said:
ECF #4 Summons Returned Executed as to Foreign State or Agency

View attachment 7964944View attachment 7964946View attachment 7964947View attachment 7964948View attachment 7964950View attachment 7964951View attachment 7964952View attachment 7964956View attachment 7964957View attachment 7964961View attachment 7964963View attachment 7964964View attachment 7964966View attachment 7964968View attachment 7964970View attachment 7964971View attachment 7964972View attachment 7964973View attachment 7964974View attachment 7964975View attachment 7964976View attachment 7964978View attachment 7964979View attachment 7964980View attachment 7964982View attachment 7964984View attachment 7964985View attachment 7964987
Click to expand...

Can you believe in this day and age they still do this ribbon and seal thing?
 
AnOminous said:
It was service in person to a pretty questionable representative who was not qualified to accept service.)
Click to expand...
that depends if he's a third party contractor or an ofcom's employee. if the UK is like the US than the latter means ofcom has been served. i assumed it legit because they used a limey process server. from the looks of the filing, he isn't a 3rd party contractor.
 
Its all academic anyways. Even if OFCOM wanted too go the "nuh uh, not served" it would just be pointless time wasting. The rules of process exist primarily too prevent people being sued and not actually knowing they are being sued. OFCOM knows about the case, they said so when asked about it. In general, the Courts expect a beaurocratic institution too not engage in in wigger behavior and attempt too prolong things by dodging service.
 
mindlessobserver said:
But I would assume they were followed since a local process server was hired.
Click to expand...
They were. For a corporation (even a crown corporation like OFCOM), it's enough to safely leave the documents within view of employees of the served party, at their business or operating address. OFCOM can challenge the service if they feel it was improper, but they'd have a hard time convincing any court of the case.

e: clarifying that they can't just dump it outside the front door
 
Last edited:
teriyakiburns said:
They were. For a corporation (even a crown corporation like OFCOM), it's enough to safely leave the documents within view of employees of the served party, at their business or operating address. OFCOM can challenge the service if they feel it was improper, but they'd have a hard time convincing any court of the case.

e: clarifying that they can't just dump it outside the front door
Click to expand...
Well that's it then. If what was done is considered proper service in the UK, its proper service for the Federal Court. US Federal Courts defer too the State rules of process in which the person too be served resides. Vast majority of the case law on this is other US States not local too the court itself, but they also apply too independent countries too.

The only way an issue could come up is if the service was not in compliance with UK law. If it was in compliance though, then the service was proper and OFCOM has been served.
 
I'll just say that the UK high court ruled that emailing a summons to my animalfetishporn.us joke email account was considered valid and complete service of an unreachable Encyclopedia Dramatica user who had a similar username to me. I'm sure this is fine by UK 'standards'.
 
Lian Xing said:
>not man enough to take the documents from the process server
The absolute state of the UK: cucked.
Click to expand...
Being an absolute sniveling weasel is a requirement to be a British bureaucrat. They were talking big in their emails, but once the papers come for them they turn tail. MovieBlob level move.
 
chiobu

UK Thread 'UK communications regulator confirms £20,000 4Chan fine'

1760360223284.png

LONDON — The provider of online message board 4chan has been fined £20,000 by the U.K.'s communications regulator Ofcom for failing to respond to requests for information about its compliance with the Online Safety Act.

Preston Bryne, a lawyer representing 4Chan, said in August that Ofcom had provisionally decided to fine 4Chan for £20,000. Ofcom's statement today confirms that is the case.

Ofcom will also impose a daily penalty of £100, starting from Tuesday, for either 60 days or until 4chan provides it with the relevant information, whichever is sooner...
Reactions:Lunacy x 21 Informative x 4 Islamic Content x 2 Like x 1 Optimistic x 2

The UK fined 4chan 20,000 pounds
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom