The European Commission fined X (formerly Twitter) €120 million on December 5, 2025, stating that the platform breached transparency obligations under the Digital Services Act. This is the EU’s first non-compliance fine under the DSA and is aimed at platform features that, in the Commission’s view, mislead users and reduce accountability—rather than at policing opinions or political speech.
What’s in the news
The fine and the legal basis
The Commission issued a €120 million penalty against X for DSA transparency violations, treating this as a precedent-setting enforcement action under the new law.
The three flagged problem areas
The Commission said the breaches include: deceptive design around the blue checkmark system, insufficient transparency of the advertising repository, and failure to provide researchers access to public data.
A wider probe is still running
The fine does not conclude the broader DSA investigation opened in December 2023 to examine issues such as illegal content risks and information manipulation; that proceeding continues separately.
Background and context
What the Digital Services Act is trying to fix
The DSA is built to reduce systemic online harms by demanding transparent processes: clearer ad information, restrictions on deceptive interface choices, and access for independent research that can surface risks to public discourse and user safety.
Why the blue checkmark became central
Before 2022, Twitter’s blue tick primarily signalled identity verification for notable accounts. Under X, verification became purchasable, which the Commission argues makes it harder for users to judge authenticity and increases room for scams and impersonation.
What the EU investigation found
Deceptive verification design
The Commission said X’s paid “verified” presentation can deceive users because “verified” appears to indicate trustworthiness or identity checks even when meaningful verification is not consistently established.
Advertising repository transparency gaps
The Commission said X’s ad repository did not meet DSA requirements for transparency and accessibility, limiting public scrutiny of paid influence and who is behind certain ads.
Restricted data access for researchers
The regulator also said X did not meet obligations to provide researchers access to public data, which is crucial to detect manipulation risks and study advertising patterns.
Compliance timeline set by the Commission
Short deadlines, clear deliverables
The Commission indicated X has 60 working days to explain measures addressing the deceptive design issue, and 90 working days to submit an action plan for ad repository and researcher-access issues.
Why it matters
A precedent for DSA enforcement
Because this is the first DSA non-compliance fine, it signals how the EU will interpret “transparency” and “deceptive design” in real-world platform features—especially those that shape trust signals at scale.
The trust layer of the internet is being regulated
The EU’s approach is not only about removing illegal content. It is also about the infrastructure of credibility: verification cues, ad traceability, and independent auditability, which can collectively reduce scams and covert influence.
Wider geopolitical spillover
The fine has triggered sharp political reactions in the U.S., with criticism that EU regulation targets American innovation, while EU officials have argued the action is about legal compliance rather than censorship.
Arguments for and against the EU’s action
Arguments supporting the fine
User protection and anti-scam rationale
If “verified” signals can be bought without robust checks, users can be misled into trusting impersonators and fraud networks, making transparency enforcement defensible.
Democratic accountability of paid influence
An accessible, meaningful ad repository helps society understand who is paying to shape attention, especially during sensitive political or social moments.
Independent scrutiny as a public good
Researcher access is a practical safeguard when platforms are too large to be audited by regulators alone.
Arguments criticising the fine
Allegations of regulatory overreach
Critics say the DSA can become a tool that chills innovation or imposes Europe’s rules globally, especially on U.S.-based platforms operating across borders.
Consistency and selective enforcement concerns
Some argue other platforms also run paid verification and ad systems, and enforcement should be visibly consistent to avoid perceptions of targeting.
Legal and governance angle
The DSA’s “design” obligations are enforceable law
A key element here is that “dark patterns” and deceptive interface choices are not treated as minor UX decisions; they are regulated as compliance issues when they distort user understanding.
Due process and remedies
X can contest the decision through legal avenues within the EU framework. Separately, the Commission’s broader 2023 proceeding continues, meaning enforcement and investigation are running on parallel tracks.
Implications and way forward
For X
Rebuild clarity in trust signals
The simplest compliance direction is to ensure verification labels clearly convey what is being verified (identity, subscription, organisation status) and what is not.
Make the ad repository truly usable
Transparency is not only about having a database; it is about making it searchable, timely, and intelligible to watchdogs, researchers, and citizens.
Restore credible research access pathways
Researcher access frameworks need predictable timelines and stable interfaces so public-interest scrutiny is not frustrated by delay or gatekeeping.
For other platforms
The message is clear: “transparency” is moving from a voluntary best practice to an enforceable standard, especially for systems that shape public trust and paid amplification.
Source credits
European Commission press release and DSA notice on the €120 million fine (December 5, 2025)
