Joris DeeneThe European Commission has imposed the first heavy sanctions under the Digital Services Act (DSA), with a €120 million fine for X and binding commitments from TikTok. These decisions mark a turning point in the regulation of online platforms, but the conflict completely derailed this weekend. What began as a legal sanction has grown into an open battle whereby X excludes the European Commission itself from the platform.
Below, we analyze the legal basis, the crucial differences between the two cases, and the potential legal points of contention surrounding the “blue ticks”.
The facts: two tracks of enforcement
On December 5, 2025, the European Commission made two important decisions in the context of the DSA. Although both cases revolve around transparency and user protection, the outcome is different.
- The X case (formerly Twitter): The Commission has imposed a fine of €120 million for breaches of transparency obligations. The investigation, which began in December 2023, revealed that X was found to be at fault in three areas: the misleading use of “blue ticks,” an inadequate advertising archive, and the refusal to grant researchers access to data.
- The TikTok case: Unlike X, TikTok avoided a fine by making binding commitments. Following preliminary findings by the Commission in May 2025 regarding a lack of advertising transparency, TikTok committed to making its advertising archives (repositories) fully transparent and searchable.
Update December 8: X's counterattack
Just two days after the fine, on Sunday, December 7, the situation escalated. X blocked the European Commission's advertising account. Nikita Bier, Head of Product at X, accused the Commission of exploiting an “exploit” in the advertising tools to artificially increase their post about the fine and disguise it as a video. The action has serious political implications: the US is now threatening to impose trade tariffs on steel and aluminum if the EU does not relax its digital rules, with American politicians dismissing the fine as “censorship”.
The decisions
The fine for X
The Commission found that X had infringed the DSA in fundamental respects. The infringements included:
- Misleading Design ("Dark Patterns"): The ‘blue tick,’ once a sign of authenticity, can now be purchased by anyone without meaningful verification. This misleads users about the reliability of accounts and facilitates fraud.
- Opaque advertisement archive: X's archive lacks essential information about the content of advertisements and who pays for them, and contains barriers that make oversight difficult.
- Blockade for researchers: In its terms of use, X prohibits researchers from independently collecting public data (e.g., through scraping) and creates unnecessary barriers to accessing data, which undermines research into systemic risks.
TikTok's commitments
TikTok has legally committed to bringing its advertising repository into line with the DSA. This means:
- Displaying the full content of advertisements and the URLs used.
- Providing targeting criteria and aggregated data on the target groups reached (gender, age, Member State).
- Ensuring that this information is available within 24 hours.
Legal analysis
The tension between the DSA and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive
Although the action against X is framed as a victory for consumers, the legal basis for the ‘blue ticks’ component is open to debate and could potentially be overturned on appeal.
The Commission bases the infringement concerning the blue ticks on Article 25(1) DSA, which prohibits online interfaces that mislead or manipulate users. However, Article 25(2) DSA contains a crucial exception: this provision does not apply to practices that are already covered by the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC).
The Commission's position is that users are misled by the ticks and therefore make transactional decisions that they would not otherwise have made (such as interacting with an account or purchasing a product through a scam). This is a textbook example of a misleading commercial practice under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.
It is our legal assessment that the blue ticks are likely to be prohibited under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. However, by enforcing them through Article 25 DSA, the Commission may be ignoring the explicit legal exclusion in Article 25(2) DSA. This makes this specific part of the decision vulnerable to annulment by the Court of Justice. Although the intention—consumer protection—is legitimate, the chosen legal route appears to be procedurally risky.
No censorship, but consumer rights
It is crucial to emphasize that these decisions are not about moderating individual expressions or ‘censorship.’ Enforcement focuses on structural transparency (advertisement archives) and consumer confidence (verification claims). It is about enforcing rules that are comparable to consumer legislation in the physical world: if you claim that a product is ‘verified’, it must be true.
The Commission's blockade: Article 14 DSA
X's decision to block the regulator is legally risky. Article 14 of the DSA requires very large platforms to apply their terms and conditions in a “a diligent, objective and proportionate manner”. Blocking a government agency as direct retaliation, under the guise of a technical violation (“exploit”), could be seen as arbitrary and a new violation of the DSA. The irony is striking: X is now accusing the Commission of precisely what they themselves have been fined for: misleading users via the interface.
What this specifically means
- For platforms: The message is clear: transparency is not an option, but an obligation. It is possible to ‘buy off’ prosecution by making binding commitments (as TikTok did), but this requires constructive cooperation.
- For advertisers and marketing: There will be complete transparency about who is advertising, what criteria are used (targeting), and who is being reached. This means that marketing strategies on platforms such as TikTok will become fully verifiable for competitors and researchers. The blocking of the Commission's account proves that diversifying your online channels is essential to avoid dependence on the whims of a single platform.
- For researchers: The decision against X confirms researchers' right to access public data. General prohibitions on scraping in terms of use are untenable under the DSA when they impede legitimate research into systemic risks.
FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions
Is the fine imposed on X a form of censorship by the EU?
No. The fine does not relate to the content of messages posted by users. The sanctions concern the misleading design of verification systems (‘blue ticks’), the lack of transparency about who pays for advertisements, and the refusal to grant researchers access to data.
Why isn't TikTok being fined, but X is?
During the investigation, TikTok cooperated constructively with the European Commission and made binding commitments to resolve the issues. X, on the other hand, did not remedy the infringements, which led to a non-compliance decision and a fine.
Can X simply block the European Commission?
In principle, platforms have freedom of contract. However, as a ‘Very Large Online Platform,’ X must apply the rules of the DSA objectively. Blocking the regulator shortly after a fine gives the appearance of arbitrariness and may lead to a new investigation.
Are blue ticks now prohibited?
No, verification systems are permitted. What the DSA prohibits (according to the Commission) is their misleading use: suggesting that an account is verified and authentic, when in fact the check mark has simply been purchased without any identity check.
Conclusion
The first non-compliance decision under the DSA against X and the settlement with TikTok demonstrate that the European Commission is serious about creating a transparent and secure online ecosystem. For legal purists, however, the application of the DSA to the ‘blue ticks’ remains an interesting point of contention, given the overlap with existing consumer legislation.
However, the aggressive backlash from X and American politics elevates this issue beyond the legal realm: it is a test case for European digital sovereignty.
Dutch 
English