The European Commission’s decision to fine Elon Musk’s social-media platform X €120 million has triggered a confrontation that goes well beyond a routine regulatory case.
The penalty, imposed under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), is the first full non-compliance ruling against a “very large online platform” and centres on transparency obligations rather than content removal.
Brussels found that X’s paid “blue checkmark” verification is designed in a way that can mislead users, that its advertising repository is insufficiently transparent, and that researchers are not being given adequate access to public data. The Commission has given the company 60 days to remedy problems linked to the checkmark system and 90 days to address ad transparency and data-access issues. If X does not comply, it faces escalating sanctions, including the possibility of much larger fines – up to 6 per cent of global turnover – and, in extreme circumstances, temporary restrictions on access to the service in the EU.
Musk’s reaction has been unusually sharp even by the standards of disputes between Big Tech and Brussels. On X he wrote that “the EU should be abolished” and called for sovereignty to be returned to individual member states. He also reposted material depicting the EU as a “Fourth Reich”, further inflaming the political tone of the argument. In a parallel move, X restricted the reach of a European Commission advertising account, according to EU officials, after it promoted the announcement of the fine – a step critics say sits uneasily with Musk’s presentation of himself as a defender of unfettered expression.
The dispute has quickly drawn in the Trump administration in Washington. Senior figures including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau have described the EU’s action as an attack on American technology companies and as harmful to the transatlantic partnership. Vice-President JD Vance has framed the fine as evidence that European regulators are using digital rules to target US platforms under the guise of user protection. This fits into a broader narrative from parts of the US political right that portrays the EU as a regulator of speech rather than as a market rule-maker.
For Brussels, the case sits squarely within its attempt to bring large platforms under a common set of obligations on illegal content, algorithmic risks and disinformation. The DSA requires major services to assess and mitigate “systemic risks”, including coordinated foreign influence campaigns and the spread of harmful but lawful material, and to provide greater access to data for vetted researchers. EU officials argue that X’s current design – with paid verification, limited transparency and reduced moderation capacity – increases the scope for bots and state-linked networks to manipulate debate around elections, migration and security.
Some European commentators view the confrontation with Musk through the lens of earlier experiences with Russian platforms and messaging services. During and after the 2014 annexation of Crimea, Ukraine concluded that Russian-owned networks such as VKontakte and Odnoklassniki were being used as instruments of information war. In 2017 Kyiv banned access to these services and other Russian web companies on national-security grounds, a move extended under President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Messaging platform Telegram is also cited in this context. European law-enforcement authorities have repeatedly raised concerns about its use for criminal purposes, from drug dealing to the distribution of child sexual abuse material and the organisation of extremist networks. In 2024, Telegram’s founder Pavel Durov was detained and later charged in France for allegedly allowing the service to be used to facilitate such crimes, although he has denied wrongdoing. Supporters of stricter regulation argue that claims of “free speech” cannot extend to tolerating clear criminality under national and international law.
The X case also exposes long-standing differences between American and European legal traditions on freedom of expression. In the United States, there is no general “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, and most offensive or hateful expression remains protected unless it directly falls into narrow categories such as incitement or true threats. By contrast, many European states criminalise certain forms of hate speech, Holocaust denial and Nazi propaganda, and ban the public display of Nazi symbols, reflecting the continent’s twentieth-century history.
Musk himself has become a prominent participant in these debates. His acquisition of Twitter in 2022, rebranding as X and subsequent reduction of moderation and trust-and-safety capacity have been linked by researchers and watchdogs to increases in hate speech and disinformation on the platform. His public alignment with figures on the global far right, and controversies such as a salute at a Trump inauguration rally that critics interpreted as fascist in nature, have sharpened scrutiny of his political role, though he rejects accusations of extremist sympathies.
For now, the immediate question is procedural rather than ideological. The Commission cannot simply order X to be shut down across the EU without following the DSA’s enforcement steps and obtaining judicial approval for any temporary restriction. The €120 million fine and the 60- and 90-day compliance deadlines are part of that legally prescribed sequence. If X adjusts its systems to meet the transparency requirements, the clash may remain largely symbolic. If it does not, the platform could become the first major test of the EU’s willingness to move from financial sanctions to limits on access for a global social-media service.
