The Lawfare Podcast

Episode: Lawfare Live: The EU Fines X 120 M Euros - What Comes Next?
Date: December 5, 2025
Host: Kate Klonick (Lawfare Senior Editor)
Guest: Renee DiResta (Lawfare Contributor, Stanford Internet Observatory)

Overview

This episode tackles the European Commission's landmark decision to fine X (formerly Twitter) 120 million euros for violations of the Digital Services Act (DSA). Host Kate Klonick and guest Renee DiResta break down the details of the DSA, debunk the "censorship" narrative, and examine what the decision means for tech regulation, transatlantic relations, and the future of platform governance.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. What is the Digital Services Act? (DSA)

[03:37 – 07:01]

• Definition & Context:

  • The DSA is one of Europe’s foundational laws regulating online services, focusing on transparency and accountability for very large online platforms (VLOPs).
  • Often confused in the U.S. with “Democratic Socialists of America” due to the acronym, but entirely unrelated.

• Core Provisions:

  • Notice and Action: Platforms must implement clear mechanisms for the European Commission to flag and remove illegal content—a subject of civil liberties debate because Europe’s definition of “illegal” includes categories of speech protected in the U.S.
  • Trusted Flagger Program: Designates third-parties to flag illegal content. Raises concerns over independence and potential overreach.
  • Transparency & Data Access:
    • Requires regular public reporting about risk mitigation and operational processes.
    • Mandates platforms to provide privacy-protective data access for researchers (formerly done voluntarily by Twitter, now enforced).
  • User Rights: Enables users to appeal moderation decisions and obtain explanations for takedowns, suspensions, etc. (a right not available in the U.S.).

“It’s primarily a transparency and accountability law ... not a censorship law, even though the framing has stuck.”
—Renee DiResta (06:50)

2. The Specific Charges Against X (Twitter)

[08:14 – 12:41]

• The EC’s fine centered on three major violations—none related to speech censorship:
  1. Misleading Verification System: X began selling “verified” blue checks that did not actually verify identity, enabling impersonation and scams.
  2. Failure to Provide Ad Repository: X did not create a searchable ad transparency database, as required, preventing civil society and researchers from analyzing targeted advertising practices.
  3. Denial of Public Data Access: The company failed to provide researchers access to its public data, undermining transparency obligations.

“Tell me if you hear in there anything about… censorship. These [fines] are not about speech takedown.”
—Kate Klonick (11:46)

3. Debunking the “Censorship” Narrative

[07:36 – 10:01], [33:37 – 36:21]

• U.S. politicians and commentators (e.g., J.D. Vance, Brendan Carr) have criticized the DSA as a tool for censorship, viewing EC fines as attacks on American tech companies and free expression.
• Klonick and DiResta argue this is driven less by principle and more by lobbying and U.S. tech industry interests, especially as American companies face significant European regulatory pressure.

“It is less principled and it’s a beard… for doing the tech companies’ work for them.”
—Kate Klonick (09:22)

• The censorship framing persists because it’s catchy and useful politically, regardless of the actual legal grounds for the fines.

“It takes me 2000 words to lay out all of the different points … and all they have to say is ‘Digital Censorship Act.’”
—Renee DiResta (40:55)

4. Platform Self-Governance vs. Regulation

[12:41 – 16:50], [24:54 – 27:45]

• There was once a “golden age” of voluntary transparency, when Twitter pre-Elon Musk provided data to researchers and self-published state actor takedown reports.
• Since Musk’s takeover, voluntary disclosure evaporated—leading to the need for mandatory regulation.

“You see the hollowness of only having the voluntary … that is why, when you look at Wall Street regulation, the SEC is up there. … You need both [self-regulation and formal regulation].”
—Renee DiResta (27:45)

• Europe is committed to a hybrid approach: encouraging dialogue and compliance first, using fines as a last resort.

5. TikTok Parallel: Contrasts in Compliance

[22:47 – 24:54]

• TikTok was also investigated over ad transparency lapses but avoided fines by cooperating with regulators.
• Contrasts with X’s adversarial stance, which prompted stiffer penalties for non-compliance.

“If you engage with us and talk to us about your processes … you won’t face these fines. … TikTok did not have any fines … whereas X did.”
—Kate Klonick (23:16)

6. Enforcement and What Comes Next for X

[30:26 – 34:43]

• Procedural Steps:
  • X has 60 days to explain how its verification system will comply with the DSA.
  • X has 90 working days (taking it into April) to comply with ad transparency and researcher data access obligations.
• Enforcement Pathways:
  • If X does not comply, the EU will escalate financial penalties and could, in extreme cases, attempt asset seizures—an operationally complicated and unprecedented step.
  • Shutting X off in Europe is unlikely, given logistical and sovereignty challenges among EU member states.

“They are just threatening to ratchet up fines … if you don’t pay fines they start seizing your assets—but that’s boring legal stuff.”
—Kate Klonick (33:37)

7. The Geopolitical and Media Framing

[36:21 – 42:28]

• U.S. politicians are likely to continue framing the EC’s actions as censorship, regardless of facts.
• The “censorship” frame will remain powerful on platforms like X, especially in right-wing media ecosystems.

“Facts just don’t matter at this point ... it’s an attention game and a framing game.”
—Renee DiResta (36:21)

• The current U.S. administration is attempting conflicting tech policy positions: domestically critical of platforms on issues like content moderation, but defensive of U.S. firms abroad.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the shift in transparency:

  • “This magical period of self-regulation … ended when Elon took it over.”
    —Renee DiResta (14:22)

• On voluntary vs. mandatory regulation:

  • “…When all of the voluntary stuff rolls back, you see the hollowness of only having the voluntary right.”
    —Renee DiResta (27:24)

• On changing concepts of platform governance:

  • “It’s still privately owned. It is a privately owned company operating in a market and must adhere to the rules of the market.”
    —Renee DiResta (28:10)

• On the political/public square frame:

  • “Nowhere did this become clearer than in the fight in Brazil … ‘our market, our rules.’”
    —Renee DiResta (28:37)

• On enforcement realities:

  • “It’s not super feasible for Europe as an idea, specifically for the reason you discussed in national sovereignty of the member states…”
    —Kate Klonick (33:42)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• DSA Explained: [03:37 – 07:01]
• Specifics of X's Fines: [08:14 – 12:41]
• Debunking "Censorship" Claims: [07:36 – 10:01], [33:37 – 36:21]
• Transparency & Platform Governance: [12:41 – 16:50]
• TikTok Comparison: [22:47 – 24:54]
• Legal Process / What Comes Next: [30:26 – 34:43]
• Media Framing & Geopolitics: [36:21 – 42:28]

Conclusion

The EU’s fine against X is a watershed moment in platform accountability, with repercussions for global tech regulation. Despite political noise about censorship, the case revolves around transparency and user/data protections—areas once addressed by voluntary industry effort, now the purview of formal regulation amid growing distrust and polarization. The future hinges on how well platforms, regulators, and societies can reconcile sovereignty, free speech, and public accountability in the digital age.

“It just kind of changes a lot of how you engage with these laws that are passed … okay, I disagree with the substance of this law, but I agree with the right for them to have it.”
—Kate Klonick (42:28)