EU vs X: The First Major Fine Under the Digital Services Act

Source: Corriere della Sera – “Europe Fines Musk’s Social Network. The United States: No to Censorship”, 6 December 2025

The first sanction under the Digital Services Act: a signal to the Big Tech market

For the first time since the entry into force of the Digital Services Act (DSA), the European Commission has imposed a €120 million fine on X, Elon Musk’s platform, accused of breaching fundamental transparency obligations. The case does not concern content moderation, but violations related to data management, advertising transparency and the proper provision of information to users — all essential elements for consumer protection and for limiting online disinformation.

Transparency and accountability: the core of the European decision

According to Brussels, X allegedly:

• failed to provide required information on political advertising and the accounts disseminating it;

• breached obligations regarding the traceability of illegal content;

• circumvented provisions on algorithmic safety and the supervision of systemic risks.

The Commission has made it clear that the sanction has nothing to do with censorship — as claimed by some American politicians — but rather with the failure to comply with basic rules of digital transparency.

The message is unequivocal: platforms with systemic impact must ensure a level of accountability proportionate to their informational power.

The transatlantic clash: Washington speaks of “censorship,” Brussels responds

The reaction from the United States was immediate. Several figures within the new U.S. administration accused Europe of attempting to “silence” Musk. The case fits into a broader context of growing tension between the EU and the U.S. over the regulation of Big Tech: Europe is pushing for strict rules, while Washington tends to defend a more liberal approach, also to protect its own technological champions.

When platforms become democratic infrastructures

The fine imposed on X is not an isolated event; it signals a paradigm shift. In the EU’s view, dominant platforms are no longer merely private spaces, but infrastructures that directly influence elections, information security, the labour market and social cohesion.

If left inadequately regulated, they can amplify:

• opaque political propaganda,

• algorithmic manipulation,

• targeted disinformation,

• erosion of trust in democratic processes.

This is where transparency becomes a public obligation, not a corporate preference.

Why this matters to citizens and Algopolio’s role

This case clearly illustrates the core of the battles Algopolio is engaged in: the protection of users’ rights in the face of platforms that are too large to be neutral. When a platform violates transparency obligations, it does not harm only advertisers or regulators; it undermines the quality of democracy, trust in institutions and citizens’ freedom of information.

Algopolio was founded to defend precisely this space: conscious digital freedom, not freedom abandoned to the arbitrariness of Big Tech.