{"id":18069,"date":"2025-12-05T15:02:55","date_gmt":"2025-12-05T14:02:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/alexandrageese.eu\/?p=18069"},"modified":"2026-11-09T12:59:37","modified_gmt":"2026-11-09T11:59:37","slug":"e120-million-fine-for-x-sends-a-political-signal-but-fails-to-protect-democracy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/alexandrageese.eu\/en\/e120-million-fine-for-x-sends-a-political-signal-but-fails-to-protect-democracy\/","title":{"rendered":"\u20ac120 Million Fine for X Sends a Political Signal \u2013 But Fails to Protect Democracy"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dear friends!<\/p>\n

This is my message of the day: For the first time, the EU Commission has used the teeth of the Digital Services Act (DSA). I have been pushing for this for years!<\/p>\n

You can find all the details in my press release below.<\/p>\n

With determined regards,<\/p>\n

Yours, Alexandra Geese<\/p>\n

—<\/p>\n

Press Release: \u20ac120 Million Fine for X Sends a Political Signal \u2013 But Fails to Protect Democracy<\/b><\/p>\n

Brussels, 5 December 2025 \u2013 Today, the European Commission issued its first formal non-compliance decision under the Digital Services Act (DSA) against the platform X (formerly Twitter), imposing a fine of EUR 120 million. The Commission finds serious infringements: the misleading use of the \u201cblue checkmark\u201d, major shortcomings in advertising transparency, and the systematic obstruction of data access for researchers.<\/p>\n

For Alexandra Geese, MEP for the Greens\/EFA Group, this decision is a necessary first step \u2013 but politically incomplete<\/b>:<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is an important start, but not a breakthrough. As long as the Commission fails to rule on the algorithms, the central lever of manipulation remains untouched. Anyone who, like Elon Musk with X, systematically relies on deception, manipulation and opacity must not be allowed to treat this as a calculable cost of doing business.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n

Already in January 2025, the Commission launched additional investigatory measures into X\u2019s recommender systems<\/b><\/a>, including requests for internal documents on algorithm changes and access to technical interfaces. These investigations concern the suspicion that the algorithm systematically amplifies certain political content while suppressing others. A decision on these allegations is still pending.<\/p>\n

Geese sharply criticises the absence of this second, central decision:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Commission is dodging the decisive question of power: the algorithms. The systemic risk for elections and democratic discourse under Article 34 DSA is being left out, even though analyses of elections in Germany, Poland and the United Kingdom clearly show that X manipulates political reach, distorts election campaigns and systematically boosts certain opinions while suppressing others.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n

(Note: Studies demonstrating political bias on X are listed below.)<\/p>\n

This regulatory restraint comes at a time of intense geopolitical pressure on European platform regulation. Geese also addresses this with clear words:<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen the US Vice President attacks the EU, Elon Musk applauds him in public, and at the same time threats are made of visa harassment against fact-checkers and of using trade tariffs to blackmail Europe, this is no longer a debate about freedom of expression. This is coordinated geopolitical pressure. It is about controlling algorithms as a political instrument of power in order to manipulate elections and prepare regime change in Europe. The Commission is still ignoring exactly this systemic risk under Article 34 DSA. I expect it to adopt a separate, tough decision on this without delay.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n

Deception through the blue checkmark: a systematic abuse of trust<\/b><\/p>\n

The Commission finds that X misleads users about the alleged \u201cverified status\u201d: the blue checkmark suggests authenticity and trustworthiness, even though no genuine identity verification takes place. This deliberately facilitates fraud, identity theft and political manipulation. Geese explains:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe blue checkmark is not a design flaw, it is a fraud feature. X sells credibility to anyone who pays, whether troll, scammer or propagandist. Trust is turned into a commodity and manipulation into normality. This opens the door wide to fraud, coordinated disinformation and election meddling.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n

Advertising transparency effectively dismantled<\/b><\/p>\n

Geese is particularly concerned that X\u2019s advertising repository is practically unusable: it lacks information on sponsors, content and targeting, and erects deliberate access barriers for the public and for researchers:<\/p>\n

\u201cWithout effective advertising transparency, there can be no democratic control of digital election interference. X is deliberately sabotaging scrutiny of political ads, disinformation campaigns and hybrid threats. This is not a technical failure, it is political irresponsibility.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n

Blocking research access prevents exposure of systemic risks<\/b><\/p>\n

The Commission also confirms that X systematically denies researchers the legally required access to public platform data, including through contractual clauses and technical barriers:<\/p>\n

\u201cThose who block research do not want transparency, they want ignorance. X is deliberately preventing the societal harm caused by its algorithms from being scientifically documented. This is a direct attack on evidence-based democracy policy.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n

Now we find out whether the DSA has teeth<\/b><\/p>\n

Geese is highly critical of the fact that X now has up to 90 working days to submit action plans. After years of systematic law-breaking, she believes there must be no more benefit of the doubt:<\/p>\n

\u201cX has not broken the law once, but for years. What we need now is not another action plan on paper, but immediate enforcement: daily penalty payments, tough deadlines and, if necessary, direct interventions in the recommender algorithms.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n

In conclusion, Geese underlines the fundamental significance of today\u2019s decision:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe DSA was created for exactly these kinds of situations. Today, Europe has shown that it can act \u2013 but not yet that it can enforce. Our democracy is worth more than a symbolic fine for one of the most powerful men in the world.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

BACKGROUND<\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The European Commission opened formal proceedings against X under the Digital Services Act on 18 December 2023. On 12 July 2024, it issued preliminary findings concerning deceptive design, lack of advertising transparency and insufficient data access for research. On 17 January 2025, the Commission also launched additional investigatory measures into X\u2019s algorithm changes, focusing in particular on potential distortions caused by recommender systems.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

With today\u2019s decision, the Commission has issued its first formal non-compliance decision under the DSA and imposed a fine of EUR 120 million. A decision on systemic risks under Article 34 DSA is still outstanding.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Studies demonstrating political bias on X:<\/b><\/p>\n