What the DSA Investigations Against Major Platforms Mean for Your Online Platform
- 4 days ago
- 6 min read
published: 21 June 2026
The Digital Services Act (DSA) (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065) imposes obligations on online platforms that offer services to recipients established or located in the European Union, irrespective of where the provider itself is established (Article 2 DSA). While the DSA is often associated with large technology companies, many of its obligations apply to online platforms of all sizes.
Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSEs) are subject to additional regulatory obligations and fall under the direct supervision of the European Commission. The Commission may open formal proceedings against these providers where it suspects non-compliance with the DSA. Interestingly, several of these investigations do not only concern the additional obligations applicable to VLOPs and VLOSEs, but also obligations that apply more broadly to all online platforms, such as notice-and-action mechanisms, protection of minors, dark patterns and advertising transparency.
Although smaller online platforms are generally supervised by the national Digital Services Coordinators of the Member State in which they are established or have their legal representative, these investigations provide valuable insight into how regulators interpret key DSA provisions in practice. In this blog, we discuss what the European Commission’s investigations reveal, how they may influence national enforcement under Article 52 DSA, and what this means for your online platform.
Formal proceedings under the DSA
Since 17 February 2024, the DSA applies to all online intermediaries that fall within its scope (Article 2 DSA). Since then, the European Commission has opened several formal proceedings against Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSEs). These include proceedings against X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, Meta (Facebook and Instagram), AliExpress, Temu, Snapchat, Shein and, more recently, X’s AI service Grok. Most of these investigations are still ongoing.
Under Article 66 DSA, formal proceedings are official investigations initiated by the European Commission to determine whether a VLOP or VLOSE has infringed the DSA. Opening formal proceedings does not mean that a platform has already violated the law. It merely indicates that the Commission considers there to be sufficient grounds to conduct a formal investigation.
During these proceedings, the Commission has extensive investigative powers. It may request information, conduct interviews, carry out inspections, adopt interim measures in urgent situations, monitor access to databases and algorithms, accept binding commitments and ultimately adopt a non-compliance decision and impose fines.
Providers may face fines of up to 6% of their total worldwide annual turnover if the Commission finds that they intentionally or negligently infringed the DSA (Article 74 DSA).
Typically, the Commission first conducts a preliminary assessment before opening formal proceedings. During the investigation, the provider is given the opportunity to respond to the Commission’s concerns and demonstrate compliance. Before adopting a final decision, the Commission communicates its preliminary findings to the provider.
As of June 2026, the Commission has preliminarily found TikTok’s addictive design to be in breach of the DSA and has preliminarily found both TikTok and Meta to be in breach of certain transparency obligations. In August 2024, the Commission also made TikTok’s commitment to permanently withdraw its TikTok Lite Rewards Programme from the EU legally binding under Article 71 DSA.
Why this might be relevant to your platform
Although many of the formal proceedings concern obligations that apply exclusively to VLOPs and VLOSEs, several of the alleged infringements are based on provisions that apply to all online platforms operating in the EU.
As a result, these investigations are not only relevant for the largest technology companies. They also provide valuable insight into how the European Commission interprets certain DSA obligations in practice, such as the protection of minors, notice-and-action mechanisms, dark patterns, advertising transparency and recommender systems.
It is important to note that not every digital platform qualifies as an online platform under the DSA. We discuss this distinction in more detail in a separate article.
The table below provides an overview of the platforms currently under investigation by the European Commission and highlights which potentially infringed DSA provisions may also be relevant to online platforms more generally.
Platform | Main compliance concerns |
Illegal content (Article 16), internal complaint-handling systems (Article 20), transparency of online advertising (Article 26), and transparency of algorithmic recommender systems (Article 27). | |
Protection of minors (Article 28), terms and conditions (Article 14), adequacy of notice-and-action mechanisms for illegal content (Article 16), internal complaint-handling systems (Article 20), transparency reporting obligations (Article 24), and deceptive design features (Article 25). | |
Addictive design (Article 25), illegal products (Article 16), and transparency of algorithmic recommender systems (Article 27). | |
Protection of minors (Article 28), dark patterns (Article 25), illegal content (Article 16), and internal complaint-handling systems (Article 20). | |
Addictive design (Article 25) and transparency of algorithmic recommender systems (Article 27). | |
Protection of minors (Article 28). | |
Adequacy of notice-and-action mechanisms for illegal content (Article 16) and deceptive design features (Article 25). |
Penalties for non VLOPs and VLOSEs
Although the substantive obligations under the DSA are harmonised at EU level, the penalties applicable to non-VLOPs and non-VLOSEs are largely determined by the individual Member States.
Article 52 DSA requires Member States to lay down rules on penalties for infringements of the DSA and to ensure that these penalties are effective, proportionate and dissuasive. However, the DSA does not prescribe a uniform EU-wide fine structure for ordinary online platforms.
As a result, if a non-VLOP or non-VLOSE online platform breaches an obligation such as transparency of algorithmic recommendations, the national Digital Services Coordinator of the competent Member State will generally investigate the infringement. The relevant national authority will then apply its own enforcement regime implementing Article 52 DSA, meaning that the exact sanctions may differ between Member States.
Practical tips for online platforms
The European Commission’s formal proceedings against VLOPs and VLOSEs may be relevant to smaller online platforms as well. Although national authorities are responsible for enforcement, these investigations provide insight into how key DSA obligations may be interpreted in practice and reveal several practical lessons for online platforms more generally.
1. Build child safety into your platform design (Article 28)
The European Commission increasingly expects the protection of minors to be embedded into the design of online platforms, rather than being addressed afterwards.
Online platforms should therefore critically assess:
whether minors present advertisements based on profiling as this is not allowed;
whether minors can easily access age-restricted or harmful content;
whether default settings maximise privacy and safety for minors.
2. Make reporting illegal content simple and accessible (Article 16)
Several proceedings show that online platforms should not treat notice-and-action mechanisms as a mere legal formality.
Platforms should ensure that:
users can easily locate the reporting mechanism;
users are able to submit notices without unnecessary obstacles;
non-registered users can report illegal content too;
users receive confirmation that their notice has been received;
any notice leads to a timely and objective decision.
3. Avoid manipulative or deceptive design choices (Article 25)
The Commission is paying increasing attention to interface design.
Platforms should review whether certain design choices could unintentionally pressure or mislead users, including:
confusing subscription labels or symbols;
interfaces that steer users towards a specific decision;
unnecessarily complex terminations (unsubscribe).
4. Ensure that your complaint-handling process actually works (Article 20)
Users must be able to challenge platform’s decisions regarding a complaint about illegal content or the terms and conditions of the platform in a clear and accessible manner.
Platforms should ensure that:
users are informed about available remedies;
complaints can be submitted easily;
complaints are handled within a reasonable timeframe;
procedures are clearly explained.
5. Review how your recommender systems operate (Article 27)
The Commission is increasingly scrutinising the role of algorithms in shaping user behaviour. Platforms using algorithmic recommendation should be able to explain:
why certain content or products are recommended;
the main parameters used by the system;
the relative importance of those parameters; and
how users can easily modify their preferences where applicable.
Explanations should be provided in plain and intelligible language and should be easily accessible to users.
6. Do not assume illegal products are solely a seller’s responsibility (Article 16)
The proceedings demonstrate that regulators increasingly expect platforms to take active steps to prevent the dissemination of illegal products and illegal content through their services. Platforms should critically assess whether they have sufficient safeguards in place to identify, remove and limit access to harmful or unlawful content, products or services.
Formal proceedings against major platforms are more than headline news. They offer practical guidance on how regulators must interpret key DSA obligations in practice. For online platforms operating in the EU, these investigations provide an opportunity to proactively assess whether their own systems, policies and platform design align with evolving regulatory expectations.
Disclaimer: This article is intended to provide general information only and does not constitute legal advice. The law may apply differently depending on the specific facts of each case. Before taking any action based on the information in this article, you should obtain legal advice tailored to your circumstances. For advice on your specific situation, please contact Ingenium Law through contact@ingeniumlaw.com.