MCMC’s early objection upheld as court rejects TikTok ban challenge

KUALA LUMPUR, 22 SEPTEMBER 2026 —

A Malaysian court has dismissed Na’im Brundage’s legal challenge against the suspension of his TikTok accounts, upholding the Communications and Multimedia Content Management Commission’s (MCMC) initial objection.

The court ruled that MCMC did not make the decision to block Brundage’s accounts, stating that the commission had only taken administrative action by notifying TikTok of compliance concerns. The final decision to suspend the accounts rested with TikTok itself, the judge said.

“MCMC only acted administratively by informing TikTok about compliance issues with platform guidelines, and any subsequent action was TikTok’s decision,” Judge Norliza said in her judgment. She added that the judicial review process under Rule 53 of the Subordinate Courts Rules 2012 does not function as an appeal but rather as a supervisory check on decision-making procedures.

The court also clarified that TikTok—not MCMC—was responsible for filtering and blocking Brundage’s accounts. “The respondent (MCMC) only carried out legal and administrative actions and cannot be considered a decision-maker subject to review,” the judge stated.

The five applicants—MCMC’s Chief Operating Officer Datuk Dr. Mohamed Sulaiman Sultan Suhaibuddeen, MCMC Chairman, Fahmi Fadzil, and the Selangor government—had filed an interim objection on June 24, 2024, seeking to halt Brundage’s judicial review. Their legal teams, led by A.Ruebankumar for MCMC and Ainna Sherina Saipolamin for the federal government and Fahmi, successfully argued against Brundage’s challenge.

Brundage, represented by Latheefa Koya, had sought a certiorari order to quash MCMC’s April 1, 2024, notice blocking his two TikTok accounts. In his affidavit, he claimed the accounts were suspended without explanation despite his regular uploads of commentary on current affairs.

The ruling reinforces MCMC’s authority in enforcing digital content regulations, particularly under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. While TikTok remains the platform responsible for enforcement, MCMC’s administrative oversight ensures compliance with Malaysian law, including restrictions on content deemed harmful or non-compliant.

The decision comes amid growing scrutiny over social media content moderation in Malaysia, where platforms face pressure to align with local regulations. MCMC has previously issued warnings to TikTok and other digital platforms over issues such as misinformation, hate speech, and underage access.

The court’s rejection of Brundage’s challenge sets a precedent for future disputes, clarifying that MCMC’s role is procedural rather than decisional. Legal experts say the ruling strengthens the commission’s position in enforcing digital content rules without direct liability for platform actions.

For Brundage, the outcome means his accounts remain suspended pending further review, though he may explore alternative legal avenues. The case also highlights the tension between free expression and regulatory oversight in Malaysia’s digital landscape.

Related: MCMC · Na’im Brundage · Kuala Lumpur