The European Commission’s €120 million fine imposed on the social media platform X represents the first enforcement decision under the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), marking a significant development in the regulation of very large online platforms in Europe.[1] The decision, issued on 5 December 2025, concluded that X violated several transparency obligations under the DSA and set an important precedent for how the EU intends to enforce its new digital regulatory framework.[2] The Digital Services Act, adopted in 2022, establishes a set of obligations for digital platforms, particularly those classified as “very large online platforms” with more than 45 million users in the EU.[3] These platforms are subject to enhanced transparency, accountability, and risk mitigation requirements, which the European Commission enforces directly.[4] The DSA is designed to protect users online, increase transparency in digital services, and enable researchers and authorities to examine systemic risks posed by large platforms.[5]
The European Commission’s Findings
The Commission’s decision identified three primary areas in which X failed to comply with DSA obligations.[6] First, the Commission determined that X’s paid “blue checkmark” feature constituted a deceptive design practice.[7] Under the platform’s system, users could obtain a blue verification badge through subscription without undergoing meaningful identity verification, which the Commission argued could mislead users regarding the authenticity of accounts and the content they produce.[8] According to regulators, this design exposed users to potential scams, including impersonation fraud and other forms of manipulation by malicious actors.[9]
Second, the Commission concluded that X’s advertising repository failed to meet the transparency requirements mandated by the DSA.[10] The repository reportedly lacked critical information, such as the content and topic of advertisements and the identity of the entity paying for them, which hindered oversight by researchers and civil society.[11] Additionally, accessibility issues and delays in processing requests reportedly prevented effective scrutiny of advertising practices and potential online threats. The third violation identified by the Commission concerned X’s restrictions on researchers’ access to public platform data.[12] The Commission found that X’s terms of service prohibited independent collection of public information, including scraping, and that the platform’s official procedures imposed significant barriers to accessing relevant datasets. These restrictions were deemed inconsistent with DSA provisions that guarantee qualified researchers the ability to study systemic risks affecting European society.[13]
The Fine and Enforcement Process
In determining the €120 million penalty, the Commission considered the nature of the violations, their duration, and the number of EU users affected by the platform’s practices.[14] The decision represents the first non-compliance ruling under the DSA, signaling the EU’s willingness to enforce the regulation against major technology companies. EU officials emphasized that the ruling demonstrates the Union’s commitment to protecting users, promoting transparency, and restoring trust in the online environment.[15] Following the decision, X was required to inform the Commission within 60 working days of the measures it would take to address the deceptive use of blue checkmarks. The company was also given 90 working days to submit a broader action plan addressing deficiencies in its advertising repository and researcher access systems.[16] If the platform fails to comply with these requirements, the Commission may impose additional periodic penalty payments. The Commission’s action is part of a broader investigation launched in December 2023 concerning X’s handling of illegal content and information manipulation on the platform.[17] This investigation remains ongoing and could lead to further enforcement measures or fines if additional violations are confirmed.[18]
X Challenging the Decision
In February 2026, X challenged the €120 million fine before the General Court of the European Union, initiating the first judicial review of a DSA penalty.[19] The company filed several legal actions against the Commission’s decision, including challenges submitted by corporate entities connected to the platform as well as one apparently linked to its owner, Elon Musk.[20] The appeal argues that the Commission’s decision resulted from an incomplete investigation, procedural errors, and an incorrect interpretation of the obligations under the DSA.[21] According to statements by the company, the enforcement process involved systematic breaches of due process and fundamental rights of defense.[22] X therefore seeks the annulment of the fine and has argued that the Commission’s enforcement powers under the DSA raise broader rule-of-law concerns.[23]
The case may establish important precedents for how fines are calculated and how fundamental rights protections are applied within the DSA framework.[24]
Debate and Broader Implications
Criticism of the Commission’s decision has also emerged from policy analysts and political actors, particularly in the United States. Some critics argue that the DSA incentivizes technology companies to remove lawful speech and may have extraterritorial effects on online expression beyond the EU.[25] These concerns have contributed to broader tensions between the European Union and the United States regarding the regulation of global technology platforms. Other commentators have questioned whether the alleged violations justify such a substantial financial penalty.[26]
For example, critics have argued that labeling the paid verification system as “deceptive” may be an overstatement, given that the policy change has been widely discussed publicly since the platform introduced subscription-based verification after Elon Musk acquired the company.[27] They also contend that regulators should avoid discouraging product innovation by penalizing platforms for modifying design features that evolve over time.
Nevertheless, supporters of the Commission’s action argue that strong enforcement is necessary to ensure compliance with the DSA and to prevent systemic risks associated with large online platforms.[28] From this perspective, the regulation seeks to ensure that digital platforms remain transparent, accountable, and open to independent scrutiny.[29] The case against X therefore illustrates the EU’s broader strategy to regulate the digital economy and hold major technology companies responsible for their impact on society.[30] The outcome of X’s legal challenge will likely have far-reaching consequences for the future of platform regulation in Europe.[31] If the court upholds the Commission’s decision, it may strengthen the EU’s ability to enforce transparency and accountability requirements under the DSA.[32] Conversely, if the court finds procedural flaws or limits the Commission’s interpretation of the law, it could reshape how the DSA is applied to digital platforms across the EU.[33] Ultimately, the dispute reflects broader global debates about how governments should regulate large technology platforms while balancing transparency, innovation, and freedom of expression in the digital age.[34]
[1] Gkritsi, Eliza. X Challenges €120M EU Fine. Politico, 20 Feb. 2026, https://www.politico.eu/article/x-challenges-e120-million-fine/; Pingen, Anna. EU Fines X €120 Million in First DSA Non-Compliance Decision. eucrim, 19 Jan. 2026, https://eucrim.eu/news/eu-fines-x-120-million-in-first-dsa-non-compliance-decision/; European Commission. Commission Fines X €120 Million under the Digital Services Act. European Commission Press Corner, 5 Dec. 2025, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_2934.
[2] Pingen, 2026; European Commission Press Corner, Commission Fines X, 2025.
[3] Alliance Defending Freedom International. X Challenges €120m Fine under EU Censorship Law at Top European Court. 20 Feb. 2026, https://adfinternational.org/news/x-challenges-e120m-fine-under-eu-censorship-law.
[4] ADFI, 2026.
[5] Pingen, 2026; European Commission Press Corner, Commission Fines X, 2025.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] European Commission Press Corner, Commission Fines X, 2025.
[9] Pingen, 2026; European Commission Press Corner, Commission Fines X, 2025.
[10] Ibid.
[11] European Commission Press Corner, Commission Fines X, 2025.
[12] Pingen, 2026; European Commission Press Corner, Commission Fines X, 2025.
[13] Pingen, 2026.
[14] European Commission Press Corner, Commission Fines X, 2025.
[15] Pingen, 2026; European Commission Press Corner, Commission Fines X, 2025.
[16] Pingen, 2026; European Commission Press Corner, Commission Fines X, 2025.
[17] European Commission Press Corner, Commission Fines X, 2025.
[18] Pingen, 2026; European Commission Press Corner, Commission Fines X, 2025.
[19] Gkritsi, 2026; ADFI, 2026.
[20] Gkritsi, 2026.
[21] Gkritsi, 2026; ADFI, 2026.
[22] Ibid.
[23] ADFI, 2026.
[24] Gkritsi, 2026; ADFI, 2026.
[25] Castro, Daniel. The X Fine Highlights Europe’s Growing Regulatory Overreach. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, 11 Dec. 2025, https://itif.org/publications/2025/12/11/the-x-fine-highlights-europes-growing-regulatory-overreach/.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Pingen, 2026; European Commission Press Corner, Commission Fines X, 2025.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Gkritsi, 2026; ADFI, 2026.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Castro, 2025.
