The Hidden Risks of Website Ownership That Every Business Owner Should Understand
By Dr Clifford Frank, Senior Partner, LEXeFISCAL LLP
February 2026
Estimated reading time: 15 minutes
It is a question I am asked with surprising frequency, and the answer is rarely as straightforward as my clients expect. Do you know who actually owns your website? Not who pays for the hosting. Not who updates the content. Not who designed it. But who, in law, holds the rights to the domain name, the underlying code, the visual design, the written content, and the digital infrastructure upon which your entire online presence depends.
In over forty years of advising businesses on their tax and legal affairs, I have witnessed an extraordinary number of disputes that could have been avoided entirely had the business owner taken the time to understand a deceptively simple point: a website is not a single asset. It is a bundle of separate legal rights, each of which may be owned by a different person or entity, and each of which carries its own legal, tax, and commercial implications.
In the digital age, your website is very often the public face of your business. For many enterprises, it is the primary revenue-generating asset. Yet I encounter time and again business owners who have invested tens of thousands of pounds in their online presence without the faintest idea of who holds the legal rights to the various components of that presence. When things go wrong – and they do, with alarming regularity – the consequences can be devastating.
The Component Parts of a Website: A Bundle of Rights
To understand the ownership question, one must first appreciate that a website comprises several distinct elements, each attracting different intellectual property and proprietary rights under English law.
The Domain Name
Your domain name – the “www.yourbusiness.co.uk” that customers type into their browser – is not, strictly speaking, something you “own” in the traditional sense. When you register a domain name, you are acquiring the exclusive right to use that web address for a specified period, rather than owning it outright as a freehold property. Domain names ending in .uk are administered by Nominet, whilst .com, .net and .org domains fall under the governance of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The registrant – the person or entity listed on the register – holds the rights to direct traffic to the corresponding website and to exclude others from using the same name.
The legal status of domain names has been the subject of considerable judicial development in recent years. In Hanger Holdings v Perlake Corporation SA [2021] EWHC 81 (Ch), HHJ Hacon, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, confirmed for the first time in an English court that a domain name constitutes intangible personal property. This was a case involving the valuable domain www.blackjack.com, where the court found that the claimant had an equitable interest in the domain name upon termination of the relevant agreement.
Shortly afterwards, in Brake v Guy [2021] EWHC 671 (Ch), HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) held that the rights in an internet domain name constituted a chose in action or bundle of choses in action. The registrant of the domain name was held to be the legal owner, whilst the person on whose behalf and on whose instructions the domain name was registered was the beneficial owner. This distinction between legal and beneficial ownership of a domain name mirrors the trust concepts that practitioners encounter in other areas of property law and has significant practical implications.
As Lord Hoffmann observed in OBG Ltd v Allan [2008] 1 A.C.1, he had “no difficulty” with the notion that a domain name was intangible property. Whilst we still await a definitive appellate authority on the point, the direction of travel is clear: English law is increasingly willing to recognise domain names as a form of intangible property, with all the attendant consequences that flow from that classification.
Here lies the first trap for the unwary. In my experience, a surprisingly large number of business owners have no idea who is listed as the registrant of their domain name. It may be the web designer who set up the site ten years ago. It may be a former employee. It may be a digital agency with whom the business no longer has a relationship. Following the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in May 2018, it became considerably more difficult to discover who owns a domain through the traditional WHOIS lookup, as registrant details are now often redacted for privacy. Business owners would be well advised to log in to their domain registrar’s account and verify, as a matter of urgency, that their company is listed as the registrant.
The Website Code and Design
The source code that makes your website function, together with its visual design, layout and graphical elements, are protected by copyright under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988). The fundamental principle of English copyright law is deceptively simple: the author of a work is the first owner of copyright in that work (section 11(1) CDPA 1988). Where the author is an employee who creates the work in the course of employment, the employer is the first owner (section 11(2) CDPA 1988).
This is where the difficulties begin. If you have engaged a freelance web developer or a third-party design agency to build your website – as the majority of small and medium-sized businesses do – the default position under English law is that the developer or agency, as the creator, owns the copyright in the code and design. You, as the commissioning party, have paid for the work but may not, without a proper assignment of intellectual property rights, actually own it.
I have seen this cause immense difficulty when a business wishes to change web developers. The original developer refuses to hand over the source code, claiming (often correctly) that they own the intellectual property in it. The business is left in the invidious position of having to negotiate a transfer of rights from a party with whom the commercial relationship has broken down, or alternatively commissioning an entirely new website from scratch at very considerable expense.
The solution is straightforward but requires foresight: every contract with a web developer or digital agency should contain a clear intellectual property assignment clause, transferring all copyright, database rights, and design rights in the deliverables to the commissioning business upon payment. Without such a clause, the business is left relying on an implied licence, the scope of which may be uncertain and which may not survive the termination of the commercial relationship.
Website Content
The text, images, videos and other content on your website each attract separate copyright protection. If your employees create this content in the ordinary course of their employment, the business will generally own it. However, if content has been created by freelance copywriters, photographers, or graphic designers, the position is more nuanced. Unless the contract with the content creator contains an express assignment of copyright, the creator will retain ownership and the business may have, at best, an implied licence to use the material on its website.
Stock images and licensed fonts present a further layer of complexity. The business does not own the copyright in these materials; rather, it holds a licence to use them on specified terms. Those licence terms may restrict the manner and context in which the images or fonts can be used, and may need to be renewed periodically. If the licence lapses or the terms are breached, the business may find itself exposed to claims of copyright infringement even in respect of content on its own website.
Hosting and Server Infrastructure
The physical or virtual server on which your website is hosted is typically owned by the hosting provider. The business holds a contractual right to use server space and resources under the terms of a hosting agreement. This is analogous to a commercial lease of physical premises: you have the right of occupation and use, but you do not own the building. The practical consequence is that if the hosting agreement terminates or the hosting provider ceases trading, the business must migrate its website to an alternative provider. Ensuring that the business retains copies of all website files, databases and configuration settings is therefore essential.
The Platform Trap: Website Builders, Templates and the Illusion of Ownership
The proliferation of website builder platforms has made it easier than ever for businesses to establish an online presence. Wix, Squarespace, GoDaddy, WordPress.com and similar services offer attractively priced packages that include templates, hosting, domain registration and design tools, often for a modest monthly or annual subscription. For the small business owner or sole trader, the proposition is seductive: a professional-looking website, created in hours rather than weeks, at a fraction of the cost of a bespoke build. Yet the ownership implications of these arrangements are frequently misunderstood, and the consequences of that misunderstanding can be severe.
You Are Renting, Not Owning
The first and most important point to understand is that when you build a website on a proprietary platform such as Wix, Squarespace or GoDaddy’s Websites + Marketing service, you are effectively renting the technology stack. The templates, the design framework, the underlying code, and the hosting infrastructure all remain the property of the platform provider. You own your content – the text you write, the images you upload, the products you list – but you do not own the structure, the design, or the code that presents that content to the world.
This has profound practical consequences. If you decide to leave the platform, you cannot take your website with you. There is typically no export function that allows you to transfer the site to another hosting provider. You can download your content – your text, your images, your data – but the design, the layout, the functionality, and in many cases the accumulated search engine optimisation value of your site’s URL structure, are lost. You must rebuild from scratch.
Wix: Broad Licence, Limited Portability
Wix’s Terms of Use make the position tolerably clear, though many users do not read them carefully. Wix does not claim ownership of user content: the text, images, videos and other materials that the user uploads remain the user’s intellectual property. However, the user grants Wix a broad licence to use that content for the purposes of providing and improving the service, including for training artificial intelligence and machine learning models. Critically, Wix’s templates, design elements and site components are expressly described in the terms as Wix proprietary materials which may not be used outside the Wix platform. The user retains ownership of content but not of the design structure in which that content is presented.
Account ownership on Wix is determined by reference to the email address listed in Wix’s records. Where a domain is connected to a Wix account and there is a conflict between billing details and domain registrant details, Wix may prioritise the domain’s registrant as the owner. This is an area where disputes can readily arise, particularly where a web designer or agency has set up the Wix account on behalf of a client.
GoDaddy: Template Code Stays with the Platform
GoDaddy’s Website Design Services Agreement is refreshingly explicit on one point: upon completion of a design project, GoDaddy agrees to transfer all rights and ownership of the design to the customer. However, the agreement immediately qualifies this by stating that software, third-party content and programs are never transferred, and that ownership and copyright of all templates and themes, including all applicable source code, remain with GoDaddy. Furthermore, the customer grants GoDaddy an unrestricted licence to display screenshots of the design in its marketing materials.
GoDaddy does not claim ownership of customer content, but the customer is solely responsible for backing up all data. Failure to maintain the subscription will result in termination of the website builder service. The domain name, however, is owned by the customer for as long as the annual renewal fee is paid – a distinction that many users fail to appreciate. The domain and the website are separate assets with separate ownership structures, even when purchased from the same provider.
Squarespace: You Own Content, Not the Platform
Squarespace’s terms follow a similar pattern. Its Terms of Service state unequivocally that the Services are owned by Squarespace and protected by copyright, trade secret, trademark and other laws. Users retain ownership of their content, and it is possible to migrate content to other platforms. However, the templates upon which Squarespace websites are built remain Squarespace’s intellectual property. The platform reserves the right to change, suspend or discontinue services, or to terminate access, at its sole discretion. Should Squarespace cease operations, all websites hosted on the platform would be affected, highlighting the importance of platform independence.
WordPress: The Open-Source Alternative
WordPress merits separate consideration because it operates on a fundamentally different model. The self-hosted WordPress software, available from WordPress.org, is open-source and licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL). This means that the user owns every part of the website: the files, the content, the design and all associated data. The software can be installed on any compatible server, and the entire website can be migrated to a different hosting provider at any time without loss of functionality or design. The WordPress trademark is owned by the non-profit WordPress Foundation, ensuring the project remains freely available.
The important distinction, however, is between WordPress.org (the self-hosted, open-source software) and WordPress.com (a commercial hosting service operated by Automattic Inc.). On WordPress.com, the user owns the content but the platform controls the hosting, the features available, and the rules that must be followed. In this respect, WordPress.com has more in common with Wix and Squarespace than with its open-source sibling. Business owners who wish to maximise their ownership and control would be well advised to use the self-hosted WordPress.org software with an independent hosting provider.
The Vendor Lock-In Problem
The common thread running through all of these proprietary platforms is the phenomenon of vendor lock-in. Every hour that a business spends perfecting its website design on a proprietary platform is an investment that cannot be recovered if the business subsequently wishes to migrate to a different provider. The accumulated search engine rankings, the URL structure, the internal linking architecture, and the visual design – all of which contribute to the commercial value of the website – are effectively lost upon migration. This represents a hidden cost that rarely features in the marketing materials of the platform providers, and which many business owners only discover when it is too late.
From a tax perspective, the vendor lock-in problem raises an interesting question about the nature of the expenditure. If a business is paying a monthly or annual subscription for a website builder that it does not own and from which it cannot export the design, is it acquiring a capital asset at all? Or is the expenditure more properly characterised as a revenue cost – analogous to rent – because the business acquires no enduring proprietary interest in the website infrastructure? The answer will depend on the specific facts, but it is a question that both the business and its tax adviser should address at the outset rather than discover in the course of an HMRC enquiry.
The Tax Treatment of Website Assets: A Practitioner’s Perspective
The question of who owns the various components of a website is not merely an academic one. It has very real tax consequences that I encounter regularly in my practice.
Capital versus Revenue Expenditure
HMRC’s position, set out in its Capital versus Revenue Expenditure Toolkit and the Business Income Manual at BIM35800 onwards, draws an important distinction between different categories of website expenditure. Where a website directly generates sales, subscriptions, advertising or other income, HMRC will normally regard the development costs as capital expenditure, on the basis that the website constitutes an enduring asset of the business. This follows the long-established principle from Atherton v British Insulated and Helsby Cables Ltd [1925] 10 TC 155 that expenditure which brings into existence an asset for the enduring benefit of the trade is capital in nature.
HMRC distinguishes between the following categories. Application and infrastructure costs, together with domain names and operating software relating to the functionality of the website, should normally be treated as capital expenditure. Conversely, initial research and planning costs prior to deciding to proceed with development, and costs associated with maintaining or updating a website, are normally accepted as revenue expenditure. HMRC uses the helpful analogy of a shop window: the cost of constructing the window is capital, but the cost of changing the display from time to time is revenue.
HMRC has also confirmed that it is not willing to treat the cost of a domain name as a tangible asset. Its view, consistent with the developing case law discussed above, is that a domain name is an intangible asset and is not eligible for capital allowances in the traditional sense.
Treatment for Companies: The Intangible Assets Regime
For companies, the tax treatment of website costs can be more complex than for unincorporated businesses, principally because of the corporate intangible assets regime contained in Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 (CTA 2009). Licences and rights over software, website development costs and domain names will often be accounted for as intangible assets and will therefore fall within this regime, provided they were created or acquired from an unrelated party on or after 1 April 2002.
Where the intangible assets regime applies, the general rule is that the tax treatment follows the accounting treatment, with amortisation or impairment of the asset being deductible for corporation tax purposes as and when recognised in the accounts. However, it may be beneficial in certain circumstances to make an election under section 815 CTA 2009 to exclude computer software from the intangible assets regime and instead claim capital allowances. This election must be made in writing within two years of the end of the accounting period of acquisition and is irrevocable. The advantage of this approach is that capital allowances, particularly the Annual Investment Allowance or full expensing, may provide faster tax relief than amortisation spread over the useful economic life of the asset.
Treatment for Unincorporated Businesses
For sole traders and partnerships, the position is somewhat simpler. Capital expenditure on a website that functions as plant – that is, a capital asset used for carrying on the business – may qualify for capital allowances under the Capital Allowances Act 2001. Computer software specifically qualifies under section 71 of that Act, and HMRC’s Capital Allowances Manual at CA23410 confirms that computer programs of any type and data of any kind should be treated as computer software for these purposes.
Disposal and Business Sales
The ownership question becomes particularly acute when a business is sold. A website and its associated domain name can represent very significant value, and any purchaser conducting proper due diligence will wish to ascertain precisely who owns each component of the seller’s digital assets. If the seller cannot demonstrate clear title to the domain name, the website code, or the content, this may either reduce the purchase price or, in extreme cases, imperil the transaction entirely.
From a tax perspective, the disposal of a domain name or website by a company will generally fall within the corporate intangible assets regime, with any gain or loss computed and taxed accordingly under Part 8 CTA 2009. For unincorporated businesses, the disposal may give rise to a chargeable gain for capital gains tax purposes, or to a balancing charge or allowance under the capital allowances legislation. In either case, proper identification and valuation of the digital assets being disposed of is essential.
Dr Frank’s Commentary: What I See in Practice
In my view, the failure to address website ownership at the outset of a business relationship is one of the most common and easily avoidable mistakes that entrepreneurs make. Having advised on numerous transactions over the years where website ownership has been contested, I can say with confidence that the cost of putting proper contractual arrangements in place at the beginning is a fraction of the cost of resolving a dispute after the relationship has soured.
The rise of proprietary website builders has, in many respects, made matters worse rather than better. I have clients who have spent years and thousands of pounds building their online presence on platforms like Wix or Squarespace, only to discover that they cannot take any of that work with them when they outgrow the platform. The terms of service are there to be read, but in practice almost nobody reads them before clicking “I Agree.” The result is that businesses are investing significant sums in digital assets over which they have far less control than they imagine.
I have seen businesses held to ransom by former web developers who registered the domain name in their own name and refused to transfer it. I have seen company sales fall through because the seller could not prove ownership of the intellectual property in its website. I have seen HMRC challenge the tax treatment of website expenditure on the basis that the business could not demonstrate that it owned the relevant assets and was therefore not entitled to claim capital allowances or relief under the intangible assets regime.
The emerging case law, particularly Hanger Holdings and Brake v Guy, is helpful in that it provides a clearer legal framework within which disputes can be resolved. The recognition of domain names as intangible property, and the distinction between legal and beneficial ownership, gives practitioners and the courts useful tools. However, the absence of a definitive appellate authority on the status of domain names as property means that there remains an element of uncertainty that could be exploited by an unscrupulous party.
From a tax perspective, I would urge business owners and their advisers to consider the following. First, the classification of website expenditure as capital or revenue has significant implications for the timing and nature of tax relief. Getting this wrong can be costly, particularly if HMRC opens an enquiry and takes a different view. Second, for companies, the interaction between the intangible assets regime and the capital allowances legislation creates a genuine choice that should be exercised deliberately and with proper advice, rather than being left to default. Third, any business contemplating a sale or acquisition should commission a proper audit of its digital assets as part of the due diligence process, to identify any gaps in ownership and address them before they become deal-breakers.
Practical Steps for Business Owners
There are several practical steps that every business owner should take to protect their position.
First, verify domain name registration. Log in to your domain registrar and confirm that your business (not an individual, not a former developer, not an agency) is listed as the registrant. If it is not, take immediate steps to effect a transfer. Use a dedicated business email address for the registration, not a personal email that might become inaccessible if an employee leaves. Make the primary contact a director or the company secretary – someone with authority in the business.
Second, review your contracts with web developers, designers and content creators. Ensure that each contract contains a clear intellectual property assignment clause, transferring all rights in the deliverables to your business upon payment. If your existing contracts are silent on intellectual property, seek to negotiate a retrospective assignment. This may involve a modest payment to the creator, but it is far cheaper than the alternative.
Third, maintain a digital asset register. This should record every component of your website, who created it, what contractual arrangements govern its use, and what licence terms apply. Include domain names, hosting arrangements, SSL certificates, content management system licences, stock image licences, and font licences. Review this register at least annually.
Fourth, consider registering your domain name as a trade mark. If your domain name incorporates your business name or brand, trade mark registration provides an additional layer of protection and strengthens your position in any domain name dispute. Nominet’s Dispute Resolution Service (DRS) provides a relatively swift and cost-effective mechanism for resolving disputes concerning .uk domain names, and having a registered trade mark significantly strengthens a complainant’s position.
Fifth, if you are using a proprietary website builder such as Wix, Squarespace or GoDaddy, read the terms of service carefully and understand what you own and what you do not. Maintain copies of all original content files outside the platform. Consider whether the vendor lock-in inherent in these platforms is acceptable for your business in the long term, and whether an open-source solution such as self-hosted WordPress would provide greater ownership, control and portability. The additional upfront cost of a bespoke or open-source website may be more than justified by the long-term savings in avoided migration costs and the security of genuine ownership.
Sixth, ensure your hosting arrangements include adequate provision for data portability. You should be able to obtain a complete copy of your website files and databases at any time, and your hosting agreement should expressly confirm your right to do so.
Seventh, seek professional advice on the tax treatment of your website expenditure. The distinction between capital and revenue expenditure, and the choice between the intangible assets regime and capital allowances for companies, are areas where professional guidance can deliver tangible tax savings. Where website costs are incurred through monthly subscriptions to platform providers, the revenue versus capital analysis will differ from that applicable to a bespoke website build, and the correct treatment should be established from the outset.
Conclusion
The question “Do you know who owns your website?” is deceptively simple, but the answer is invariably complex. A website is not a single asset but a bundle of separate legal rights – domain name, source code, visual design, written content, licensed materials, hosting arrangements – each of which may be owned by a different party and each of which carries distinct legal and tax consequences.
The developing case law, particularly Hanger Holdings v Perlake and Brake v Guy, is bringing welcome clarity to the legal status of domain names as intangible property. The tax treatment, governed by the interplay of the Capital Allowances Act 2001, Part 8 CTA 2009, and HMRC’s published guidance, provides opportunities for businesses to claim appropriate relief – but only if they can demonstrate clear ownership of the relevant assets.
The message is clear: take control of your digital assets now, before a dispute, a transaction, or an HMRC enquiry forces you to confront the question. A modest investment in proper contractual arrangements and professional advice at the outset will save you immeasurably more in the long run.
If you are navigating questions of website ownership, digital asset structuring, or the tax treatment of your online business presence, LEXeFISCAL would be pleased to assist. We specialise in advising businesses and high-net-worth individuals on the legal and tax implications of their digital and intellectual property assets.
What is your experience with website ownership? Have you audited your digital assets recently? I would welcome your comments and observations.
Vincit Veritas.
Dr Clifford Frank LLM(Tax) PhD HDipICA ATT
Senior Partner, LEXeFISCAL LLP
33 Cavendish Square, London
+442080922111
Disclaimer: This blog post is for general information purposes only. It does not constitute legal or tax advice and should not be relied upon without seeking professional advice tailored to your specific circumstances. Tax law is complex and constantly evolving. Each person’s situation is unique.
LEXeFISCAL LLP is regulated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW).
© LEXeFISCAL LLP 2026. All rights reserved.
