Introduction to the Fine
European Union regulators have fined Elon Musk’s social media platform $140 million (120 million euros) for violating rules aimed at protecting internet users in the trading bloc from digital abuse.
Reason for the Fine
The European Commission said that the platform has breached “transparency obligations” under the Digital Services Act (DSA). This fine marks the EU’s first move to penalize a company for breaking the law since it came into force in 2022.
Details of the Breach
The commission accused the platform of using its “blue tick” in a way that deceives users. Anyone can pay for verification, making it difficult for users to assess the authenticity of the accounts they interact with on the social media platform. This could expose users to scams and “other forms of manipulation by malicious actors.”
Accessibility Requirements
The European Commission has also targeted the platform’s ad repository, which it says does not meet the accessibility requirements of the DSA. Internet platforms in the EU are required to provide a database of all digital advertising they run, including who paid for them and the audience they want to target. This goal is to help researchers uncover fraud, fake ads, and coordinated influence campaigns.
Response and Next Steps
The platform has 60 days to tell the European Commission how it plans to respond to the group’s concerns. The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Opposition to the Fine
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr objected to the fine and defended the platform. The DSA requires platforms, among other things, to remove “illegal content”. Companies that do not comply face heavy fines. The law is a thorn in the side of American technology companies and members of the Trump administration who claim the sweeping regulation violates free speech.
Criticism of the DSA
During a speech in Munich, Vice President JD Vance said that the EU’s content moderation policy amounted to "authoritarian censorship." The DSA has been criticized for its potential to introduce many new substantive obligations on companies.
