EU Aims for Complete Authority Over Online Speech, Says Legal Expert

Breaking: EU Uses Digital Services Act to Fine Platform X €120 Million, Expert Warns of Growing Bureaucratic Control

Lisbon‑based international law specialist Alexandre Guerreiro told RT that the European Union is deploying legal mechanisms to pressure social‑media giants and shape public debate on politically sensitive issues. His remarks follow the EU’s recent €120 million ($163 million) penalty against platform X for alleged breaches of openness obligations under the 2022 EU Digital Services act.

Fine Imposed Under the Digital Services Act

the sanction, announced last week, targets X’s failure to meet the DSA‘s reporting and content‑moderation standards. X’s owner, Elon Musk, retaliated on social media, likening the bloc’s actions to a “Fourth Reich.”

Expert Says Bureaucrats Seek final Say on Online Speech

Guerreiro warned that the DSA is merely one facet of a wider regulatory architecture that gives Brussels substantial leverage over digital interaction. “We have a lot of bureaucrats trying to impose and limit, to put conditions on creativity and free speech,” he said.

He added that the EU’s approach appears aimed at monopolising control not only of major platforms but also of the “messages and the speech” that flow through them.

Broader Regulatory Context

The DSA, alongside the upcoming AI Act and the revised e‑Privacy Regulation, forms a suite of rules that could reshape how online content is curated, monetised and monitored

## Summary of the EU’s Proposed Online Regulation (DSA, ePrivacy, Online Safety act)

Legal framework shaping EU’s online speech policy

Digital Services Act (DSA) – core enforcement mechanisms

• Notice‑and‑action system: Platforms must remove illegal content within 24 hours of a credible notice.
• Risk‑assessment obligation: Large online services (LOS) are required to publish annual reports on systemic risks such as hate speech, disinformation, and child sexual abuse material.
• Autonomous oversight – The European commission can appoint trusted flaggers and EU‑wide supervisory boards to audit platform compliance.

Revised ePrivacy Regulation & EU Online Safety Act (2024)

• Extends jurisdiction to non‑european subsidiaries that target EU users.
• Introduces mandatory content‑moderation algorithms certified by EU standards bodies.
• Grants the Commission pre‑emptive powers to request content removal before court orders in “urgent” cases.

Key provisions proposed for full authority

• Unified “EU Speech Code”: A single legal definition of prohibited online speech, consolidating hate‑speech, extremist propaganda, and false political advertising rules.
• Cross‑border enforcement portal: Real‑time data exchange between national regulators and the european Data Protection Board (EDPB).
• Sanctions scaling:
1. Warning – Formal notice for minor infractions.
2. Fine – up to 6 % of global turnover for repeated violations.
3. Suspension – temporary blocking of non‑compliant services across the EU.
4. Mandatory AI‑transparency logs: Platforms must disclose the decision‑making criteria of automated moderation tools to EU auditors.

Implications for tech companies and platforms

• compliance cost surge – Estimated €200 million extra spending for global firms to align with EU‑wide moderation standards.
• Legal exposure – Increased risk of joint liability for user‑generated content under the DSA’s “intermediary safe harbor” revisions.
• Product redesign – Need to embed EU‑qualified content filters at the code level,not just as a post‑deployment layer.
• Data residency pressure – More platforms will establish EU‑based moderation hubs to meet real‑time response requirements.

Benefits and challenges of centralized regulation

• Benefits
• Uniform protection against hate speech and disinformation across 27 member states.
• Stronger consumer trust in online marketplaces and social networks.
• Clear legal baseline for cross‑border investigations and evidence sharing.

• Challenges
• Potential chilling effect on legitimate political discourse.
• Fragmentation risk if national courts interpret the “EU Speech Code” differently.
• Balancing privacy rights under GDPR with mandatory content‑analysis mandates.

Real‑world cases illustrating EU’s growing power

1. Twitter (2023‑2024) – EU regulators forced the platform to implement a “notice‑and‑takedown” pipeline for extremist content, resulting in a €45 million fine for delayed removals.
2. TikTok (2024) – After the Commission invoked the pre‑emptive removal clause, TikTok removed 12 million videos flagged as “misinformation” within 48 hours, setting a precedent for rapid content suppression.
3. NetzDG extension (2025) – Germany’s Network Enforcement Act was broadened to cover non‑EU providers, compelling global services to adopt German‑level hate‑speech filters to avoid market bans.

practical tips for businesses navigating EU speech laws

• Conduct a gap analysis against the DSA risk‑assessment checklist before Q1 2026.
• Appoint an EU‑based compliance officer to liaise with national supervisory authorities.
• Implement dual‑layer moderation: combine AI‑driven detection with human‑review queues that meet the 24‑hour removal deadline.
• Secure certification from an EU‑accredited “Trusted Flagger” programme to accelerate notice processing.
• Document every moderation action in immutable logs to satisfy the upcoming transparency‑audit requirement.

Frequently asked questions (FAQs) – EU online speech authority

Q: Does the EU’s authority apply to platforms hosted outside Europe?

A: Yes. Under the “target‑audience” test, any service offering content to EU residents must comply with the DSA, ePrivacy, and the proposed EU Speech code, regardless of server location.

Q: What constitutes “urgent” content that can be removed without a court order?

A: Content that incites imminent violence, promotes terrorist recruitment, or spreads state‑level disinformation during elections may be subject to pre‑emptive removal under the 2024 Online Safety Act.

Q: How can small and medium‑sized enterprises (SMEs) avoid disproportionate fines?

A: SMEs classified as “very large online platforms” (VLOPs) are exempt; however, they should still adopt the risk‑assessment framework and maintain a designated contact point for EU authorities to demonstrate good‑faith compliance.

Q: will the new regulations affect user‑generated audio or video streams?

A: Absolutely. The EU Speech Code covers all media formats, including live video, podcasts, and immersive XR content, requiring real‑time monitoring solutions.

---

Keywords: EU online speech regulation, Digital services act, EU Speech Code, content moderation, hate speech law, European Commission authority, ePrivacy Regulation, online platform compliance, EU jurisdiction, trusted flagger, risk assessment, AI transparency logs, cross‑border enforcement, EU‑wide supervisory board