The Tech Policy Press Podcast

Episode: Unpacking the Politics of the EU's €120M Fine of Musk’s X
Date: December 7, 2025
Host: Justin Hendricks
Guest: Prof. Joris van Hoboken (University of Amsterdam, DSA Observatory)

Episode Overview

This episode examines the European Commission’s landmark €120 million fine of X (formerly Twitter) for violations of the Digital Services Act (DSA)—the first fine under the new EU regulation. Host Justin Hendricks is joined by Prof. Joris van Hoboken, a leading expert on the DSA, to explore the political, legal, and transatlantic implications, analyze ongoing investigations of major platforms, and situate the decision within the broader landscape of EU digital policy.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Background: The DSA, Musk’s X, and the €120M Fine

• The DSA was politically agreed around the time Musk bid for Twitter (now X).

• Originally, Musk expressed public alignment with EU regulatory goals ([00:40]).

• The fine targets X's failure to fulfill transparency obligations, specifically misleading practices around the Blue Checkmark, a broken advertising repository, and inadequate researcher data access ([01:44]).

  Commission Spokesperson ([01:44]):
  “This is the first ever fine under the DSA. X has indeed breached its transparency obligation... The blue check mark deceives users... X does not provide effective data access for researchers.”

• Contrast: TikTok’s compliance approach, highlighted in the same decision window, led to binding commitments and no fine, signaling the Commission’s preference for collaboration ([02:56]).

2. Transatlantic Politics: US Reaction and Rhetoric

• Musk’s inflammatory response: called for “abolition of the European Union,” accusing it of tyranny and oppression ([02:56]).
• US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the fine “an attack on American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments.”
• The Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy explicitly criticizes EU regulation as a threat to Western identity and political liberty, tying it to censorship and the suppression of opposition.

3. Expert Analysis: What Happens Next Legally? ([05:57])

• X has time to become compliant or negotiate with the Commission.

• Legal escalation (appeal in court) is possible and part of the regulatory framework.

• The fine relates to transparency/compliance violations (e.g., blue check mark, ad repository); other, more sensitive investigations are ongoing.

  Joris van Hoboken ([06:26]):
  “There are some…areas on the blue checkmark…X could start to comply…It could be quite complicated…If they choose not to comply, they will have to go to court.”

4. Fine Proportionality and Enforcement Philosophy ([07:44])

• The €120M fine corresponds to about 4.5% of X’s European revenue.
• The Commission is being “relatively moderate,” avoiding maximum fines, focused on compliance over punishment.
• Proportionate because violations weren’t “across the board,” and reflects X’s “unwillingness to move into compliance.”

5. Ongoing & Future DSA Investigations

• Preliminary DSA investigations of X covered broader topics (content moderation, risk management, hate speech), but current enforcement focuses on transparency ([10:44]).

• Systemic risk investigations (e.g., illegal content, hate speech, civic discourse) are complex and ongoing; Commission and platforms are still learning how to operationalize this area ([12:02]).

  Joris van Hoboken ([12:47]):
  “The risk-based approach is…going to be difficult to operationalize in practice…We don’t yet know how the Commission will give it more teeth.”

6. EU Regulatory Mood & Political Pressure ([14:25])

• US attacks are “loud but not convincing”; the fine relates to transparency, not speech rights.

• There is a growing expectation within EU civil society and Parliament for visible enforcement.

  Memorable Quote ([16:07]):
  “Civil society is making it very clear…When are you really going to enforce it?...The mood within expert circles is: this is a very good sign.”

7. Beyond X: TikTok and Meta Under the DSA ([19:20])

• TikTok settled with binding commitments—no fine—on transparency.

• Broader societal risks (addictive design, impact on minors) remain unaddressed—future investigations expected.

• Meta’s current issues revolve around the design and usability of content notification and takedown procedures, possibly steered more toward terms of service than to European law ([22:00]).

  Joris van Hoboken ([23:09]):
  “The DSA tries to add value—low thresholds for regular users to notify services of illegal content…Meta is under investigation for making this difficult for users.”

8. Nature of EU Regulation: “Boring” or Predictable? ([24:32])

• EU regulators are methodically addressing the clearer, more manageable DSA breaches first.

• Complex and ambiguous issues (systemic risk, political speech) are in line for future action.

  Joris van Hoboken ([25:14]):
  “It makes sense—some of the easier issues, the rules are just very clear. You comply or you don’t…More complicated violations require time and more legal theorizing.”

9. Related Judicial Developments ([27:27])

• The recent CJEU decision in X vs. Rust Media/ Informed Media Press centered on intermediary liability and GDPR compliance.

• The judgment clarified that hosting providers handling personal data are GDPR controllers but do not face ‘general monitoring’ duties.

  Joris van Hoboken ([29:18]):
  “Hosting providers…don’t have to take draconian measures…mass surveillance…The court was careful not to impose general monitoring.”

10. Omnibus Regulation & Future of EU Digital Policy ([31:59])

• The Omnibus Act’s aim to cut red tape is, in practice, undermining core GDPR principles and may complicate digital regulation further.

• Data protection rights are being threatened for the sake of “competitiveness” and “innovation.”

  Joris van Hoboken ([32:57]):
  “If some of these changes are adopted as law, they’re very vulnerable to litigation…The simplification process is actually making things more complicated.”

11. The ‘Brussels Effect’ Reassessed ([35:02])

• The EU’s role as a global regulatory standard-setter is shifting.

• Both external challenges (geopolitical) and internal ones (competitiveness focus) are diminishing the primacy of “European values” in digital regulation.

  Joris van Hoboken ([37:23]):
  “The Brussels effect…is off the table now…It’s not enough…The focus is really on competitiveness…values [are] becoming less part of the regulatory mix.”

12. DSA Observatory: What’s Next? ([39:17])

• Continued scholarship on risk-based approaches and data access.
• Organizing a major conference to build community and expertise around the DSA.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the nature of the fine:
  “It’s not coming out of the blue. The investigations were opened quite a while ago that probably fed into their thinking on the fine as well.” (Joris van Hoboken, [09:51])

• On EU reaction to US rhetoric:
  “The US Administration is good in producing a lot of noise, but it’s also taken seriously…But in this case on the X fine, it’s not very convincing.” (JvH, [14:54])

• On TikTok compliance:
  “We’re seeing a bunch of commitments, but that’s not the end of the story for TikTok and DSA enforcement.” (JvH, [21:43])

• On regulatory complexity:
  “It sounds great, but I think it’s going to be difficult to really get to simpler rules in the way this is happening.” (JvH, [34:19])

• On the broader direction:
  “On some regulations, we should be much more cautious about this Brussels effect…that’s off the table now…it’s competitiveness and deregulation.” (JvH, [37:10])

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Timestamp | Segment | |-----------|-------------------------------------------------| | 00:11 | Setting the Stage: Musk, the EU, and DSA | | 01:44 | Commission Spokesperson explains the X Fine | | 02:56 | Transatlantic Political Reactions | | 03:57 | Introduction to Joris van Hoboken & DSA Observatory | | 05:57 | Legal Next Steps for X and the Commission | | 07:44 | Proportionality of the Fine | | 10:44 | Changes from Preliminary to Final Results | | 12:02 | Systemic Risk & Future Enforcement Themes | | 14:25 | Political Response and U.S. Rhetoric | | 16:07 | Civil Society & Expert Reactions | | 19:50 | TikTok Case: Settlement vs Fine | | 22:00 | Meta and Low-Threshold User Procedures | | 24:32 | Regulatory Approach: “Boring” but Predictable | | 27:27 | Recent CJEU Judicial Decision | | 31:59 | Omnibus Regulation and Civil Society Concerns | | 35:02 | The Brussels Effect in Crisis | | 39:17 | DSA Observatory’s Next Steps |

Closing

The episode offers a nuanced look at the political and regulatory landscape following the EU’s first major DSA fine, unpacking not just what happened with X, but the processes, values, and pressures shaping EU digital policy in an increasingly turbulent and politicized transatlantic setting.