A fine for doubting the blocker
On 24 September 2026, Zona.media reported that Roskomnadzor has been getting Russian courts to fine media outlets and journalists under part 9 of Article 13.15 of the Administrative Code. The offence is spreading 'fakes' about the regulator's own work. The lead case is Forbes. It published a story in March 2026 citing sources who said the TSPU blocking equipment was overloaded and could not block every restricted resource. Roskomnadzor, in a letter quoted by Zona, said the equipment works 'normally'. Its press service also told RIA Novosti that the reports were 'not true'. Forbes, its editor-in-chief Nikolai Mazurin and three Telegram channels that repeated the story were fined 370,000 rubles in total.
Forbes is not alone. Zona lists nine clusters of cases. In one of them, a Moscow magistrate fined Kommersant 200,000 rubles over a May 2026 story saying Roskomnadzor would block foreign game developers that refuse data localisation. Zona's report of that ruling was published on 27 July. Zona's longer piece lists a further 60,000-ruble fine on the paper's editor-in-chief. Daily Storm and RusNews were each fined 30,000 rubles. RTVI, Absatz and others also appear. Zona does not give decision dates for most of these rulings, and we could not independently confirm them. The case numbers it cites should be checked against Moscow court records before anyone treats the totals as final.
The strongest case for the regulator
The regulator has a fair argument. A state that runs critical infrastructure has a legitimate interest in correcting false claims about it. Reports that traffic-control equipment is failing could, in theory, move markets or panic users. Forbes relied on anonymous sources. Roskomnadzor can say it asked for evidence and that none was published. Zona's own experts say there is no objective data showing the system is failing, which cuts both ways, because the same lack of data means nobody outside the regulator can say it is working.
That last point is the problem. Fines for 'fakes' only make sense where the truth can be checked independently. Here it cannot.
Why the claim cannot be checked
The TSPU ('technical means of countering threats') are the devices installed in operators' networks under Russia's 2019 'sovereign internet' law. Signed on 1 May 2019, it requires operators to install deep packet inspection equipment supplied by the state, and Roskomnadzor sends instructions to operators through those devices. As Meduza explained, operators have no access to the devices and cannot influence what happens inside them.
So the regulator owns the equipment, controls the logs and is the only party able to confirm or deny how it performs. It is also the complainant, and the court proceeding turns on its own statement of fact. A journalist who reports a failure from sources inside operators or vendors has no way to produce a document that would satisfy a judge. The regulator's denial effectively becomes the legal truth.
Chilling effects beyond the fined outlets
The enforcement reaches past the original publisher. Zona says three Telegram channels were fined along with Forbes for repeating the story. Meduza reported on 30 March 2026 that Roskomnadzor gave the channel 'Ostorozhno, novosti' one day to delete a retelling of the Forbes story. It said the post contained 'materials aimed at destabilising the socio-political situation' and threatened to block the channel. The channel deleted it. The original Forbes article stayed online.
The pattern also shows up in the amounts. Zona's list includes a 60,000-ruble fine on Kommersant's editor and 30,000 rubles each for Daily Storm's owner and RusNews's editor. These are small by the standards of a national outlet. They are large enough to make a small channel or a regional editor delete a post, and that is the effect that matters. The state does not need to win every argument. It needs the next editor to decide the story is not worth the risk.
A proportionate alternative
One legitimate way to handle disputed technical claims is a right of reply. Roskomnadzor already answers press inquiries, and in the Forbes case it did so before publication. A published denial next to the original story, and a correction if the evidence supports one, is a proportionate remedy. Penalties should require proof of actual falsehood by an independent party. Where the system under discussion is closed by design, a fine for being wrong is a fine for asking.
There is also an economic cost. Russian businesses depend on connectivity, and Zona reports that Forbes also tied blocking equipment to outages at Sber and other banks, a claim the regulator denied. If firms cannot read credible reporting on infrastructure risk, they cannot plan for it. Reliable information about network fragility is a public good, and a regime that punishes it makes failures more likely and more damaging when they come.
What to watch
Three things will show where this goes. First, whether the courts require any evidence from Roskomnadzor beyond its own letter. Second, whether appeals produce a ruling on how a regulator's 'normal operation' can be tested. Third, whether the practice extends from outlets to the engineers and operator staff who are the likely sources. Nothing in the reporting so far suggests it will narrow on its own.