Three former TikTok content moderators in the UK have launched legal action against the social media company, accusing it of unfair dismissal and breaching trade union laws. The workers claim TikTok engaged in 'oppressive and intimidating' union busting after firing hundreds of employees in London just before a vote to form a union was due to take place.
The moderators, who were responsible for removing extreme and violent content from the platform, sought to establish a collective bargaining unit to protect themselves from the psychological toll of their work. About 400 moderators were dismissed before Christmas in a process initiated a week before the ballot. TikTok denies the claims, describing them as 'baseless', and says the sackings were part of a global restructuring driven by increased use of artificial intelligence to automate content moderation.
John Chadfield, national officer for tech workers at the Communication Workers Union, which represented around 250 of the affected moderators, said: 'This is holding TikTok to account for union busting.' He added that content moderators have 'the most dangerous job on the internet', exposed to child sexual abuse material, executions, and war footage, while being low-paid and under-resourced.
The dispute began in August 2025, when the union was poised to ballot moderators and quality assurance agents. TikTok then announced a restructuring that put members of the proposed bargaining unit at risk of redundancy, according to the legal claim. Rosa Curling, co-executive director of the tech justice non-profit Foxglove, which is backing the action, called TikTok's treatment of moderators 'appalling' and said laying off essential safety workers puts users at risk.
A TikTok spokesperson stated: 'These changes were part of a wider global reorganisation, as we evolve our global operating model for trust and safety with the benefit of technological advancements.' The company noted that AI has reduced moderators' exposure to graphic content by 76% in the past year. Michael Newman, a partner at law firm Leigh Day, said the case shows how individuals can stand up to big tech firms, and that 'the fig leaf of AI cost savings should not be allowed to obscure vital safety concerns.'
