EU Commission Accuses Meta of Insufficient Complaint Reporting Systems

Contents

Is Meta making it too difficult for users to report allegedly illegal content on its platforms Instagram and Facebook? The EU Commission is convinced of this. In its proceedings against the platforms, it has now presented its "preliminary findings," which are the last step before a possible penalty under the Digital Services Act (DSA).

Reporting Channels Unnecessarily Complicated

"Our democracies depend on trust. This means that platforms must empower their users, their rights must be respected, and their systems must be subject to oversight," stated the responsible Commission Vice-President Henna Virkkunen in a statement published this morning. "The DSA makes this a duty, not an option."

The proceedings, which the EU Commission opened in spring 2024, concern several aspects. The most immediately important for most users: the DSA requires providers to offer easily accessible reporting channels for all users of their services. If there is a suspicion of illegal content, providers must respond to a report from users – either by deleting or blocking content, or by informing the reporting user that they see no reason for intervention. This "Notice and Action" principle has been further specified with the DSA.

Page Blocks are a Problem Case

Since then, the services must also offer a possibility to appeal a decision by the platform operators: both for reporters and for users affected by a block or deletion. Meta, for example, unlawfully demands more information than required by the DSA when content is to be reported, according to an EU official. This would make reporting more difficult. Overall, the EU Commission accuses the platform operator of making it more difficult to make DSA-compliant reports through "misleading design." According to Commission officials, the EU Directorate-General Connect, acting as the supervisory authority, has "hundreds of complaints" regarding Meta's platforms. For example, blocking a Facebook page would present significant difficulties for those affected to appeal, explained a Commission official.

Contrary to what is often claimed, the Digital Services Act does not regulate the handling of individual content or content types. Instead, it refers to the law of the member states – what is illegal under that law must be handled accordingly by the platforms after a report. If the operators do not react to reports or do not comply with the regulations on complaint systems, they themselves face trouble: "If the platforms do not comply with these rules, the liability exemption for illegal content will be lifted," says a senior EU Commission official. The overall goal is to compel providers to comply, and the Commission will not shy away from further penalties if necessary.

The Digital Services Act regulates, among other things, the obligations of online platforms, search engines, and marketplaces that target EU consumers. The particularly large platforms with more than an average of 45 million users per month are directly supervised by the EU Commission. The penalty framework for systemic violations of the DSA can theoretically amount to billions for the largest providers – up to six percent of their global annual turnover. However, the advanced proceedings under the DSA so far have not yet dealt with the very serious accusations that could justify such high penalties. The current US administration claims that the DSA would unduly restrict freedom of speech – an accusation that the EU Commission has sharply rejected for months, citing the legal text and the actual regulatory content.

Access for Researchers Also Insufficient

In other aspects of the preliminary findings of the DSA proceedings, the EU Commission accuses both Meta platforms and TikTok of not ensuring access for researchers to data in accordance with the law.

The companies can now react to the preliminary findings presented on Friday by attempting to refute the EU Commission's view and committing themselves to rectifying the allegations. Whether and to what extent a penalty will be imposed on the operators has not yet been determined at this stage of the proceedings – the providers could also appeal against such a penalty in court.

(mho)