Who is really accountable for the online safety gap?

No global consensus over regulation

Interventionist regimes in the UK, EU, and Australia contrast sharply with more laissez-faire models in the US and parts of Asia. Even within regions, laws vary widely. The EU’s Digital Services Act, for example, overlays a patchwork of national codes, while in the US, federal child protection laws coexist with a complex array of state-level regulations. For businesses, this means navigating a maze of obligations that are often overlapping, inconsistent, and subject to change.

The result has been a flurry of regulatory activity, with no global consensus on the best approach. It means that companies must decide whether to adopt the most stringent standards globally, tailor solutions for each jurisdiction, or take a hybrid approach. In my experience, the most pragmatic path is a hub-and-spoke model: anchor compliance in rigorous jurisdictions and adapt flexibly to local requirements. However, even this approach is fraught with difficulty. Minor breaches can lead to multi-million-pound fines, reputational damage, and class action claims.

The Venn diagram of regulation

And, sadly, we don't live in a world where different issues have their own boundaries. Instead, ours is a world where the Venn diagram is a more appropriate image as, in truth, the concentric circles of regulations often overlap – meaning that online safety regulations often collide with other legal frameworks.

Put bluntly, complying with safety rules can create tension with a range of issues such as data privacy, intellectual property, and even emerging AI laws. Rigid controls including age verification and geo-blocking may offer a false sense of security, as users frequently find, or attempt to find, ways around them. And vague or abstract regulations can lead to legal uncertainty, making it harder for businesses to innovate or compete effectively.

Enforcement adds another layer of complexity. Regulators in some jurisdictions aim for proportionality, but this can increase compliance risks for larger firms while leaving smaller companies unsure how to calibrate their efforts. The pace of technological change only exacerbates the problem. New features and behaviours often outstrip the ability of traditional regulatory approaches to keep up, and tools designed to enhance safety—such as content scanning and automated moderation—raise fresh questions about effectiveness and accountability.

Why online safety must be shared

So, who is accountable for the online safety gap? In my view, responsibility is shared. Governments must provide clear, coherent frameworks and engage meaningfully with industry. The onus is also on businesses to invest in specialist talent, to integrate compliance into strategic planning, and foster a culture of continuous improvement. Easy to say, less easy to do. That's why individuals must remain vigilant, demanding both protection and respect for their rights.

Looking ahead, I see little prospect of true global harmonisation. Laws will continue to reflect local cultures and priorities, and while international cooperation - especially on child protection - is increasing, convergence in some areas will be offset by divergence in others. The best hope lies in sharing best practices, aligning on fundamental principles, and building trust across borders.

Ultimately, online safety is not a destination but a journey. It requires adaptability, collaboration, and a willingness to confront difficult trade-offs. Only by embracing this complexity can we hope to close the gap between aspiration and reality—and begin to restore the public’s faith in the digital world.

 Hayley Brady is UK head of media and digital at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer