The operator of pornography site Fapello has been fined £630,000 by Ofcom for failing to introduce any age checks, months after the UK made them compulsory. Since July 2025, sites offering adult content must use "highly effective" age assurance to ensure visitors are 18 or older. But Ofcom, the regulator enforcing the rules, said Fapello's company had not put any checks in place and did not reply to requests for information on time.
"Age checks are no longer optional for porn sites in the UK," said George Lusty, Ofcom's director of enforcement. "They are a cornerstone of our laws to protect children from content they should not be seeing." The regulator opened an investigation into the site in November. On Thursday, it imposed a £600,000 penalty for failing to verify users' ages, plus an additional £30,000 for failing to respond promptly to information requests. "Providers also need to know that if they don't supply accurate information to us on time, when we request it, they should expect to face enforcement action, including fines," Lusty added.
“Ofcom fines Fapello £630,000 for failing to implement age checks required since July 2025.”
The site has since blocked UK visitors, but Ofcom said it would continue to monitor compliance. The fine is the latest in a string of penalties. In May, the regulator fined YoungTek Solutions £600,000 for similar failings, and previously levied £1.35m on another adult site operator. However, Ofcom has faced scrutiny over whether its enforcement is effective. In December it emerged the regulator had never heard from a firm handed a £1m fine, raising questions about the deterrent power of monetary penalties – though that company later began complying.
Meanwhile, Ofcom is locked in an ongoing dispute with online message board 4chan over a £520,000 fine; a lawyer for the firm has mocked the regulator's threats with AI-generated hamster cartoons. On Thursday, Ofcom announced it had opened a new investigation into another porn provider, Bit Hive, over concerns that one of its age-check methods "may not be highly effective".