On Friday, 5 December, the European Commission sanctioned X, Elon Musk‘s social platform, with a fine of EUR 120 million under the Digital Services Act (DSA), the European regulation governing the liability of digital platforms in the management of content, advertising and systemic risks online.

Coming fully into force in February 2024, the DSA imposes particularly stringent obligations on large players in the sector, in particular VLOPs (Very Large Online Platforms), i.e. platforms with more than 45 million monthly active users in the European Union. This category includes giants such as X, Meta, TikTok, YouTube and Amazon.

The charges brought against X relate to three main areas: the allegedly misleading design of the ‘blue tick’, theinadequacy of the advertising archive, and the refusal to grant researchers access to public data. The decision comes at the end of almost two years of investigation, which began in December 2023, and represents the first sanction in the history of the Digital Services Act.

Blue tick and dark pattern: the main accusation

The first dispute concerns the ‘blue tick’ system , which Elon Musk changed after the acquisition of the platform inOctober 2022. Previously, the badge indicated theverified identity of the account. Today, anyone can obtain it by paying a subscription, without any real checks.

According to the European Commission, this mechanism violatesArticle 25 of the DSA, which prohibits dark patterns. The tick creates the illusion of official authentication. This increases the risk of scams, frauds and impersonations. Users are thus more exposed to targeted attacks and deceptive campaigns.

What are dark patterns and why the EU bans them

Dark patterns are digital interface design strategies designed to deceptively influence users’ choices. They can push people to subscribe, share more data than necessary or take actions they are not fully aware of, such as hidden unsubscribe buttons, preset options that favour consent or notifications designed to generate artificial urgency.

The Digital Services Act prohibits their use because it considers these practices to be a form of digital manipulation. According to the European Commission, X’s new blue tick system falls into this category. The user is led to believe that an account is verified, trustworthy and officially recognised by the platform, while in reality the badge can be obtained without any real identity check.

Publicity archive under indictment

The second violation concerns the transparency of advertisements and refers to the violation ofArticle 39 of the Digital Services Act. The DSA requires large platforms to publish an accessible archive with all paid advertisements. The sponsors, messages and target audience must appear.

The tool serves to detect propaganda, disinformation and fraudulent advertising. According to Brussels, X’s archive does not fulfil these obligations. The platform allegedly created technical barriers to access. Waiting times are excessive. Furthermore, essential data on the content of advertisements and the identity of advertisers are missing.

Data access and democracy: the most critical issue

The third contention is the most relevant because it concerns the structural transparency of the platform and directly touches thebalance of democratic processes. The violation concernsArticle 40 of the Digital Services Act, which requires VLOPs to allow researchersaccess to public data.

X would have hindered this right by prohibiting automated data collection and imposing complex procedures. The risk is not theoretical. The Cambridge Analytica case has shown how the opaque use of data can shape political consensus. A recent precedent concerns the later annulled Romanian elections, where interference reported by the Romanian security services was later confirmed by TikTok itself.

Musk’s reaction, political confrontation and X’s retaliation

Elon Musk ‘s response was immediate and very harsh. In a post on X he wrote that ‘theEuropean Union should be abolished‘, arguing that sovereignty should return to the individual states. The controversy was also joined by US Vice-President J.D. Vance, who had anticipated the sanction by speaking of ‘censorship‘ and accusing the EU of targeting American companies instead of defending freedom of speech.

On the operational side, direct retaliation also arrived. Nikita Bier, X’s head of product, announced the closure of the European Commission’s advertising account, accusing it of exploiting a vulnerability inAd Composer, the platform’s official tool for creating and managing sponsored ads, in order to incorrectly publish a link and artificially increase its circulation.

Vice-President of the Commission in charge of Technological Sovereignty, Henna Virkkunen, responded to the political reply: ‘Tricking users with blue ticks, obscuring advertising information and excluding researchers is not allowed in the EU. The DSA protects users and enhances trust in the online environment‘.

Transparency, information and the defence of democracy

The confrontation between large digital platforms and the citizens’ right to a transparent information ecosystem is now entering a phase of open tension. The battle is not only about rules and sanctions, but about the control of information flows that shape opinions, consensus and democracy.

It is in this scenario that the European cognitive defence strategy takes shape, with tools such as the European Democratic Shield. The challenge between digital giants and European democracies is only just beginning.