The Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025
Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
2 Eligibility criteria
(1) The criteria referred to in section 169(3) of the 2023 Act (criteria that must be met by an entity for it to be an “eligible entity”) are set out in paragraphs (2) to (6). (2) The first criterion is that the entity must be a body representing the interests of users of regulated services, or members of the public, or a particular group of such users or members of the public. (3) The second criterion is that the composition of the entity and the arrangements for its governance and accountability are such that it can be relied upon to act independently from regulated services (see also paragraph (4)). (4) That an entity— (a) receives funding from regulated services, or (b) has one or more representatives from regulated services involved in the governance of that entity, does not prevent that entity from being able to meet the criterion in paragraph (3). (5) The third criterion is that the entity routinely contributes significantly, as an expert, to public discussions about any aspect of online safety matters. (6) The fourth criterion is that the entity can be relied upon to have due regard to any guidance published by OFCOM under section 171(2) of the 2023 Act.
2 Eligibility criteria
(1) The criteria referred to in section 169(3) of the 2023 Act (criteria that must be met by an entity for it to be an “eligible entity”) are set out in paragraphs (2) to (6). (2) The first criterion is that the entity must be a body representing the interests of users of regulated services, or members of the public, or a particular group of such users or members of the public. (3) The second criterion is that the composition of the entity and the arrangements for its governance and accountability are such that it can be relied upon to act independently from regulated services (see also paragraph (4)). (4) That an entity— (a) receives funding from regulated services, or (b) has one or more representatives from regulated services involved in the governance of that entity, does not prevent that entity from being able to meet the criterion in paragraph (3). (5) The third criterion is that the entity routinely contributes significantly, as an expert, to public discussions about any aspect of online safety matters. (6) The fourth criterion is that the entity can be relied upon to have due regard to any guidance published by OFCOM under section 171(2) of the 2023 Act.
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Sign in to file itThink it through
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.