.
Image: AFP
In early December 2025, the European Commission issued a landmark €120 million (R 2.3 billion) fine against X, owned by billionaire Elon Musk.
This is the first-ever major penalty under the bloc’s sweeping online regulatory framework, the Digital Services Act (DSA), which aims to hold big platforms accountable for transparency, content moderation, and user safety.
For Musk, a fierce critic of regulation and champion of “free speech” as he defines it, the fine and the regulatory posture underpinning it provoked a strong backlash: he publicly called for the EU to be abolished.
This clash isn’t just about one platform. It’s a flashpoint in a larger global debate about digital governance, power, and who controls and profits from the public square.
The Digital Services Act, adopted by the EU in 2022 and fully enforced starting August 2023, imposes new obligations on “very large online platforms” (VLOPs) that serve EU users. Under the DSA:
Platforms must disclose how they moderate content, how their algorithms operate, and provide transparency on advertising.
They must grant outside researchers and non-profit organisations access to data about platform operations and systemic risks.
Platforms are subject to stiff fines, up to 6% of global revenue for non-compliance.
According to the Commission’s ruling, X violated the DSA in three ways:
Deceptive design of its “blue check-mark” system: under Musk, X began selling verification to anyone without meaningful identity checks, undermining the original purpose of a “verified” status and deceiving users.
Insufficient transparency in its advertising repository: X failed to provide adequate, timely, and searchable information about who paid for ads, what they contained, and their targeting criteria; this obstructs public scrutiny and research.
Refusal or delay in granting researcher access to public data hampers independent oversight of systemic risks, misinformation, and manipulation.
The €120 million fine is broken down roughly as €45 million for the check-mark issue, €35 million for ad transparency failures, and €40 million for data-access shortcomings.
X now faces a short window to remedy these breaches; otherwise, the EU may impose even larger fines or other sanctions.
Musk responded to the ruling with scathing rhetoric.
On his X account, he denounced the EU as a “bureaucratic monster” and called for the bloc’s dissolution, writing that “sovereignty” should be returned to national governments.
He portrayed the fine not just as a penalty against his company, but as a personal attack.
Some U.S. political figures, notably from the current administration, echoed his framing: arguing the EU’s regulatory action is an assault on American innovation, free speech, and global competitiveness.
For Musk, this is more than business: it’s ideological. He’s positioning X (and by extension his broader tech empire) in opposition to what he sees as overbearing regulation, championing a libertarian vision of digital public space.
Setting a precedent — and drawing a line
The fine sends a powerful signal: under the DSA, the EU is serious. It’s willing to enforce rules even against high-profile global platforms. This transforms the DSA from a theoretical regulation into a real-world deterrent.
Other platforms, even outside Europe, will be watching closely. For global-scale tech companies, compliance with rules like ad transparency and data access may become the baseline expectation.
The risk of fragmentation
Musk’s resistance, echoed by U.S. political leaders, raises the spectre of a fragmented global internet: different regulatory regimes based not just on user protection or content standards, but on geopolitical power and cultural values.
If the U.S. and EU diverge sharply in how they view “free speech,” “transparency,” or platform governance, companies might be forced to tailor operations on a region-by-region basis.
A broader challenge to authority and power
Beyond X, the clash speaks to larger questions: Who defines acceptable behaviour online? Who gets to moderate speech, design verification, or control data access? And, crucially, who bears the responsibility when platforms influence public discourse at a global scale?
For entrepreneurs like Musk, who emphasise disruption and freedom, the rules seem restrictive. For regulators representing collective interest, the rules represent accountability and public safety.
This tension is now playing out in real time.