Telegram has become perhaps the main platform for information in Ukraine. From news channels, some of which reach millions of people, to anonymous groups spreading slander, fake news, private photos, and the addresses of military units or volunteers—all of this is not just “leaks” in a messaging app, but specific legal violations. And despite the widespread myth that “Telegram isn’t Ukrainian, so there’s no need to be held accountable,” current legislation allows for action to be taken against such activity. This includes both administrative liability and court-ordered blocking of such channels.
From a legal standpoint, administrators of public Telegram channels are considered disseminators of information, even if the messaging app itself is not formally classified as a mass media outlet. This means they are obligated to be held accountable for the content of their posts. In other words, the dissemination of false information, private data without consent, materials that constitute defamation or an affront to honor and dignity, as well as others’ texts, photos, or videos without permission is classified under various articles of the Code of Administrative Offenses, specifically:
Article 1731 of the Code of Administrative Offenses—dissemination of false rumors;
Article 18839 of the Code of Administrative Offenses—violation of personal data protection laws;
Article 512 of the Code of Administrative Offenses—violation of intellectual property rights;
Article 2123 of the Code of Administrative Offenses — violation of laws on information, advertising, and the media.
Administrative liability for the activities of Telegram channels in Ukraine is already established practice, based on the Code of Administrative Offenses and legislation on information, personal data, and copyright.
One of the most common grounds for administrative liability is the dissemination of false rumors. If a channel publishes false or defamatory information about an individual, it risks falling under the provisions of Article 1731 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. Courts recognize the administrators of even anonymous channels as acting as public sources and may impose fines.
For example, for example, by a ruling of the Berezivsky District Court of the Odesa Region dated January 27, 2025, in Case No. 494/2383/24, an individual was held administratively liable under Article 1731 of the Code of Administrative Offenses for they created their own channel on the “Telegram” social media platform, where they disseminated photographs of students accompanied by false information about them, and thus intentionally spread false rumors about the students, which could have caused panic and confusion among participants in the educational process and their friends and family.
Equally important is the violation of copyright—the use of others’ photos, videos, and texts without permission. In such cases, under Article 512 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, a fine of up to 5,100 UAH may be imposed, and in particularly egregious cases, even the confiscation of equipment—specifically, the mobile device or laptop used to operate the channel—may be ordered.
Thus, these examples demonstrate that even administrative measures can effectively curb the misuse of content on Telegram—from the spread of false rumors and confidential information to copyright infringements. However, in cases where systematic violations pose a particular public or national threat, imposing a fine alone may not be sufficient.
In such situations, the state employs a more powerful tool—blocking the Telegram channel itself. And although Telegram is a private company with no physical office in Ukraine, practice shows that channels are actually blocked.
There are several different ways in which Ukrainian authorities can initiate restrictions on access to content on Telegram. The most common is filing a petition with the court, in which the affected individual (or government agency) requests that the channel’s actions be declared illegal and that providers be ordered to block access.
Law enforcement agencies also take action in parallel: the Security Service of Ukraine, the Cyber Police, or even the Office of the Prosecutor General can file a motion with the National Security and Defense Council to add specific Telegramchannels or their owners to the sanctions list, or apply to an investigating judge as part of criminal proceedings to restrict access to such channels. This already provides grounds for blocking at the national level: IP restrictions, DNS blocking, and account suspension through international requests to Telegram.
For example, by a ruling of the investigating judge of the Kyiv District Court of Kharkiv dated February 23, 2023, in case No. 953/16996/20, the prosecutor’s motion was granted, and an attachment was imposed on the intellectual property rights arising for Internet users when using the Telegram channels: “Resident,” “Legitimny,” “Kartel,” and “Spletnitsa” (which, according to the SBU, were engaged in intelligence and subversive activities on behalf of Russian special services), by requiring Internet service providers, operators, and telecommunications providers operating in Ukraine to block access to them.
We shouldn’t forget about Telegram’s own mechanisms either: the company regularly responds to requests regarding channels that violate the law or pose a threat. When it comes to blackmail, bullying, pornography, fake news, or military disinformation, the channel administrator or the content itself may be removed. And although Telegram is a private company, it is increasingly cooperating with official authorities in the context of the war.
Telegram has long since gone beyond being just a messaging app—it is an information weapon. In the context of war, hybrid attacks, and digital disinformation, any form of content disseminated through a channel can pose a threat. And Ukrainian legislation has already learned to respond to these challenges.
Administrative fines, court-ordered blocking, and inclusion on the National Security and Defense Council’s sanctions list—these are not abstract tools, but real mechanisms that are already in use today. And in many cases, they are quite effective. Therefore, the myth of “impunity through anonymity” no longer stands up to legal scrutiny.
Author: Barrister Mykhailo Bochevary
Source: https://zib.com.ua/ua/168298-administrativni_shtrafi_ta_blokuvannya_telegram-kanaliv_v_uk.html