EU metes out first-ever Digital Services Act fine, dings X for blue check deception
- Reference: 1764957902
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/12/05/eu_fines_x_dsa/
- Source link:
The fine, equivalent to $140 million, comes two years after the EU began [1]investigating X for what the Commission said at the time were concerns over the Musk-owned network's handling of "risk management, content moderation, dark patterns, advertising transparency, and data access for researchers." The fine [2]issued Friday concerns advertising transparency and researcher access to data, as well as X's overhaul of its blue check account verification system, which the EU said violates the DSA's provisions on deceptive design practices.
For those who've opted to purge their memory banks to make room for more valuable information, X, when it was still known as Twitter before Musk bought it, used to reserve blue check marks for accounts deemed noteworthy and needing protection from impersonation. Musk [3]changed all that in a bizarre bid to make blue checks [4]less exclusive , rendering them nothing more than the mark of someone willing to pay for a premium X subscription.
[5]
The move led to [6]chaos as paid blue-check accounts impersonated brands, bots multiplied, and users were left unsure who to trust, one of several issues that drew the EU's scrutiny under the DSA.
[7]
[8]
The DSA, [9]enacted in 2022 alongside the Digital Markets Act, laid out rules for online platforms to follow regarding illegal content, disinformation, and other systemic risks. It applies to all online intermediaries, with extra obligations for any company deemed a very large online platform, or VLOP - a list that [10]includes X regardless of Musk's decision to [11]pull the platform out of participation in the EU's voluntary disinformation code.
Regardless of whether Musk wants to play ball, the European Commission has still decided that X's handling of its former account verification system "exposes users to scams, including impersonation frauds, as well as other forms of manipulation by malicious actors" because anyone willing to pay the subscription fee can pass themselves off as verified, [12]provided that they have a display name, profile photo, confirmed phone number and "no signs of being misleading or deceptive." It's not going to stop determined fraudsters.
[13]
"While the DSA does not mandate user verification, it clearly prohibits online platforms from falsely claiming that users have been verified, when no such verification took place," the Commission said in its press release announcing the fine.
In addition to the blue check bungling, X was also fined for a lack of transparency in its ad repository, which the Commission said is designed with barriers to access that undermine the point of ad repositories.
"Accessible and searchable ad repositories are critical for researchers and civil society to detect scams, hybrid threat campaigns, coordinated information operations and fake advertisements," the Commission said. X's ad repository lacks certain critical information, the EC noted, including the content, topic, and "legal entity" paying for use of the advertising space, all of which hinders accountability. The company was also chided for "excessive delays in processing" ad transparency requests.
[14]
The Commission also fined X for limiting the ability of researchers to access public data on the platform (e.g., posts, etc) because its terms of service "prohibit eligible researchers from independently accessing its public data, including through scraping."
As with the ad repository, X has also imposed "unnecessary barriers" on researchers seeking access to the platform, "undermining research into several systemic risks in the European Union."
The Commission gave X 60 working days to explain how it intends to deal with its blue checkmark deception, and 90 working days to address regulators' concerns over the ad repository and researcher access. If the company chooses not to get into compliance, Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier told The Register , it'll become subject to "periodic penalty payments."
"This is X's choice," Regnier told us. "X did not offer any formal commitments, hence today's fine."
[15]UK minister suggests government could ditch 'dangerous' Elon Musk's X
[16]X's location tags remind users of the internet's oldest rule: Trust nothing
[17]Amnesty slams Elon Musk's X for 'central role' in fueling 2024 UK riots
[18]X's new 'encrypted' XChat feature seems no more secure than the failure that came before it
While Musk hasn't publicly commented on the fine yet, he did retweet a [19]comment by FCC chair Brendan Carr, who called it Europe "fining a successful U.S. tech company for being a successful U.S. tech company" and "taxing Americans to subsidize a continent held back by Europe's own suffocating regulations."
US Vice President JD Vance also commented on the matter, [20]saying the EU was fining X "for not engaging in censorship," while completely missing the fact that the fine was levied for X restricting access to information that EU law requires to be open and free.
Asked whether it was concerned over the possible further inflammation of tensions between the EU and US over [21]yet [22]another US tech [23]company [24]being [25]fined for violating the bloc's rules, the Commission was firm in its stance that it has the right to enforce its own laws on foreign companies operating in its space.
"We have always been clear," Regnier told us. "We have the sovereign to legislate and to enforce our legislation, which we are doing. The DSA applies equally to all online platforms offering their services in the EU."
While X is facing a fine for not complying with the EU's DSA transparency rules, TikTok entered into an [26]agreement with the Commission on Friday to put its advertising repository in line with the DSA.
The Commission said on Friday that TikTok had made binding commitments to the EU that address all of its ad transparency concerns, meaning the platform will be able to continue operating in the EU without facing a fine on that issue.
X didn't respond to a request for comment on the matter. ®
Get our [27]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2023/12/18/eu_x_investigation/
[2] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_2934
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/03/paid_and_legacy_twitter_verification/
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/10/official_twitter_musk_payment/
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aTNkBSgTh0tCvRuoCOEkKgAAAFg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/18/twitter_not_a_bot_fee/
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aTNkBSgTh0tCvRuoCOEkKgAAAFg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aTNkBSgTh0tCvRuoCOEkKgAAAFg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/06/eu_dsa_dma_laws_big_tech/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/26/amazon_app_store_bookingcom_and/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/30/twitter_disinformation/
[12] https://help.x.com/en/managing-your-account/about-x-verified-accounts
[13] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aTNkBSgTh0tCvRuoCOEkKgAAAFg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[14] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aTNkBSgTh0tCvRuoCOEkKgAAAFg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/29/uk_government_x_twiter/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/24/x_location_feature/
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/07/amnesty_x_uk_riots/
[18] https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/03/xs_new_encrypted_xchat_feature/
[19] https://x.com/BrendanCarrFCC/status/1996945925822939407
[20] https://x.com/JDVance/status/1996701953372704921
[21] https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/19/eu_court_advises_googles_appeal/
[22] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/12/eu_regulators_let_microsoft_off/
[23] https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/03/meta_ec_dma_sulk/
[24] https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/07/apple_appeals_500m_eu_antisteering/
[25] https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/29/amazon_poland_fine/
[26] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_2940
[27] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
It’s an American company, European law is irrelevant.
silly statement old chap
If american businesses operate in Europe then they are obliged to abide by European law. It's so simple to understand.
It's also very strange for the left-pondians (fcc and jd vance amongst others) to lecture Europe on suppressing free speech when we have already seen multiple instances of the shitehouse cracking down on colleges and students for speaking their minds on israel, ice, trump.et.c.
Re: silly statement old chap
>If american businesses operate in Europe then they are obliged to abide by European law
Internet stretches that concept of law a bit though.
If the X servers serving EU users are in the EU (and my guess is they're in Ireland) then it's a slam dunk and X would do well to move them. But if outside the EU then the EU should butt out.
"It’s an American company, European law is irrelevant."
OK, let's turn that round. A European company sells in the US. US law is irrelevant. No tariffs. Is that how you see it? If not could you produce a reasoned argument as to how the two cases would be different?
"Just because" or something that reduces to it would not be a reasoned argument.
Or even better, a European-based company sells a service to customers in the US, which is illegal under US laws, oh I don't know; gambling, various forms of pornography, etc.
And when challenged and threatened with legal action, can they say, 'well screw you Uncle Sam....we're not American so your laws are irrelevant'?
It works both ways!
That’s fine. 100% tariffs on Europe until this is dropped. Any European politicians have bank accounts here in America, seize them. We don’t need Europe’s BS.
Hammer the EU all you like - and I'll applaud. Remember though not all of Europe is in the EU.
"Any European politicians have bank accounts here in America, seize them. We don’t need Europe’s BS."
Any USA politicians with European assets, size them.
Guess who comes out worse?
European banks don't like having US customers, they have to provide too much information and access to the IRS.
100% tariffs on Europe, OK fine - remind me again who actually pays the cost of the tariffs?
Please don't tell me you actually believe Trumps BS about 'foreigners pay it'. Because if that's true how about 1000% tariffs on the US which, presumably Americans will pay for, yes?
If X operates in Europe
It needs to follow the laws here. Else don't operate in Europe.
Losing X would be like losing a hole in the head.
Cost
This is just cost of doing business.
Big corporations can do whatever they want as long as they throw some scraps to hungry bureaucrats all under guise of making things fairer for tax payer.
EU is having a laugh.
If they were serious, they'd simply fine X out of existence or ban it wholesale.
Re: Cost
Normally yes, just like you say, cost of doing business, provided that is X actually pays the fine - and my suspicion is they won't as a matter of principal. Neither side will back down and with Trump in office EU won't dare escalate so like so many things to do with the EU it'll drag on for years.
Re: Cost
It still costs them lawyer time.
Re: Cost
If X pays this (picayune) fine without complaint, under the illusion it is "cost of doing business", but doesn't change what it is doing, then we have the start of a winning streak against them: the EU can, as TFA points out, keep issuing "periodic penalty payments." Which can gently increase in both size and frequency, putting the "cost of doing business" on an upwards slope.
If the EU directly tries to "fine X out of existence" in one go, that'll get tangled up immediately and only the lawyers win. If the can get X to just pay up to get the EU out their hair then there is precedent set for being told to pay up the next time. And the next. And the next. And ... (as I can't see X ever understanding that they could actually start being transparent, accurate and/or honest, that is no longer in their playbook).
where's Germany
They were supposedly investigating twitter 2 years ago for massive fines... what's taking so long...
"It's a witch hunt"
It was no surprise to see Trump's lackeys rolling out the usual bullshit.
I expect a DEMONISING all-caps posting from TYRANT TRUMP next - "They treat us so badly", blah, blah, blah.
The vindictive response and threats of higher tariffs will follow in due course.
Re: "It's a witch hunt"
"I expect a DEMONISING all-caps posting from TYRANT TRUMP next - "They treat us so badly", blah, blah, blah."
It'll take a while, he'll be too busy cuddling up to his 'FiFA Peace Prize' award to bother with such mundane stuff for a day or so!
"censorship"
It wasn't censorship, it was the exact opposite. They're accusing the EU of doing that which they're doing themselves.
Now, shall we talk about [1]censorship in the US ?
[1] https://pen.org/report/the-normalization-of-book-banning/
Re: "censorship"
The US doesn't censor, it simply acts to protect its citizens against Fake News and "Unamerican Thinking"*
* After the embarrassments of the 1950s, the definition of this phrase has been simplified to avoid confusion; just convert the term "Unamerican" into a null and you are pretty much there.
Trust the Americans to give EU law the finger and to tie things up with endless appeals instead of paying up.
They're all criminals whose websites should be completely blocked by the EU until either the fine is paid or the criminals win their FINAL appeal - no "stays" during the court proceedings.