Highlights
- The EU fined X (formerly Twitter) €120 million for breaching the Digital Services Act (DSA), marking the first non‑compliance penalty under the law.
- Violations include the platform’s “paid blue checkmarks” without identity verification, failure to maintain a transparent advertising repository, and blocking researcher data access.
- U.S. officials condemned the fine, calling it an attack on American tech companies and a product of “suffocating regulations.”
- The issue highlights growing tensions between the EU’s regulatory framework and U.S. priorities on free speech and tech policy.
Why did the EU fine X under the Digital Services Act?
What triggered the sanction
EU regulators concluded that X violated multiple transparency and user‑safety obligations under the DSA. The platform allowed users to pay for “blue checkmarks,” formerly reserved for verified public figures, without enforcing rigorous identity verification. Regulators judged that this “deceptive design” misled users into trusting unverifiable accounts increasing the risk of scams, impersonation fraud, and manipulation.
X also failed to maintain a transparent advertising repository, falling short of requirements to publicly disclose who is funding adverts, their content, and targeting criteria. Regulators flagged that missing or delayed ad‑data access undermined transparency and obstructed detection of misleading or malicious ad campaigns.
Finally, X denied or restricted researchers’ access to public data (such as likes, views, engagement metrics) a DSA requirement designed to enable independent study of content trends, misinformation, and platform risk. That refusal was counted as a separate breach.
How the fine was calculated
The total €120 million fine reflects a breakdown across the three violations: approximately €45 million for the misleading verification system; ~€35 million for ad‑repository shortcomings; and ~€40 million for blocking researcher data access. Regulators described the fine as proportionate significantly below the DSA’s maximum (up to 6% of worldwide turnover) but symbolically weighty.
The fine constitutes the first major enforcement under the DSA, signalling the EU’s readiness to hold even the largest tech platforms accountable.
How did U.S. officials respond and why the “suffocating regulations” charge?
Sharp condemnation from American regulators & politicians
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr condemned the EU’s move, calling the fine “Europe taxing Americans to subsidize a continent held back by Europe’s own suffocating regulations.”
Marco Rubio U.S. Secretary of State labelled the penalty “an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments,” framing it as a broader assault on U.S. digital firms.
JD Vance, U.S. Vice President, earlier warned the EU against “attacking American companies over garbage,” defending free speech over regulatory compliance.
Underlying U.S. concerns: regulation vs. free‑speech / innovation
U.S. criticism stems from a fundamental policy difference: EU’s regulatory framework prioritizes user‑safety, transparency, and democratic oversight; many U.S. policymakers view such constraints as antithetical to free speech, innovation, and global competitiveness of American tech firms. The “suffocating regulations” phrase encapsulates the belief that heavy compliance burdens stifle tech growth and censor users.
With X being the first major target under the DSA, U.S. officials fear this could set a precedent for more fines targeting American‑based platforms, raising the prospect of a sustained transatlantic regulatory confrontation.
What does this clash mean for global tech governance?
Regulatory power shift and transatlantic friction
The fine underscores the growing willingness of the EU to enforce stringent digital‑safety laws across international platforms effectively exporting its regulatory standards worldwide. That posture challenges the previously U.S.-dominated model of light regulation. As a result, American firms may increasingly have to comply with foreign rules or face enforcement, shifting global power balances in tech governance.
Precedent for other Big Tech companies
With X being the first company penalized under the DSA, regulators across the EU may feel emboldened to scrutinize other tech giants particularly those based in the U.S. Companies operating globally may need to adapt to diverging regulatory regimes, increasing compliance costs and possibly reshaping service models.
Risk of retaliatory or protectionist measures
U.S. officials’ strong reaction suggests possible pushback: diplomatic pressure, calls for reforms, or even retaliatory trade or regulatory actions. Tech‑policy decoupling between the U.S. and EU might intensify, leading to fragmented global digital standards rather than unified frameworks.
Intensified debate over free expression vs. user protection
The public and political uproar reflects deeper tensions between free‑speech advocates and regulators prioritizing user protection, transparency, misinformation control, and digital democracy. The outcome could shape how societies balance speech freedoms with online harms influencing content policy, platform design, and regulatory norms worldwide.
What happens next for X and the broader Digital Services Act enforcement landscape?
Deadlines and potential compliance or appeal
X now has 60 working days to outline how it will revise its “blue checkmark” system and propose steps to meet ad‑transparency and data‑access requirements. Failure to comply could trigger further periodic fines, potentially escalating the financial and reputational cost.
Possible legal battle or regulatory settlement
X may challenge the fine in EU courts or negotiate a settlement setting up a potential legal showdown over the interpretation and scope of the DSA. The outcome could define enforcement boundaries and influence how strictly the EU applies its rules to U.S. platforms.
Broad impetus for global regulatory alignment or divergence
Other jurisdictions may use the EU’s enforcement as a model, accelerating adoption of similar transparency and content‑regulation laws. Alternatively, U.S.-led pushback could spur divergent regulatory paths creating a fragmented global digital policy environment.
Growing stakeholder pressure for platform design changes
Platform operators may proactively redesign services (verification, ad transparency, data access) to avoid fines. The pressure may eventually reshape how social media and large online platforms generally handle verification, advertising, and data openness.
Conclusion
The EU’s fine against X marks a pivotal moment in international digital regulation: with the DSA enforcement underway, Europe has shown it is willing to hold even the biggest social platforms accountable. U.S. denunciations show that the tension between regulatory stringency and free‑market freedom remains unresolved. The outcome could reshape global tech governance forcing platforms, legislators, and users worldwide to reckon with competing values of transparency, safety, innovation, and free expression.