TikTok faces a potential fine of 6% of its global turnover if it refuses to fix its recommendation algorithm. Regulators allege the platform’s design creates “rabbit holes” for users, violating the Digital Services Act by failing to sufficiently assess or address the harms that result from feeding certain content to users—a finding that stands in opposition to TikTok’s claims of protecting its community.
A Business Model Built on Engagement
The Commission’s investigation concludes that TikTok’s recommendation algorithm violates the Digital Services Act. Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s lead official on tech policy, told The Guardian that the core issue is the company’s business model.
Regulators are specifically targeting content surrounding topics like body image and isolation, citing phenomena like “SkinnyTok,” which TikTok banned last year.
#TikTok is under intense #EU scrutiny as regulators warn its "For You" algorithm risks trapping users in harmful "rabbit holes". Could non-compliance with the #DigitalServicesAct lead to massive fines?https://t.co/f1bxldNHpZ@tiktok_us @EU_Commission #ByteDance #Socialmedia pic.twitter.com/kbXC8BESla
The Technical Paradox of the Feed
The EC argues the Digital Services Act is being violated because the system lacks sufficient efforts to protect users’ wellbeing, including those of minors. This creates a technical paradox: the very efficiency that makes the app engaging is a primary concern for regulators.
For a user watching diet tips, the system can lead them down rabbit holes. While users may drive “filter bubble” effects, research on this phenomenon suggests that users, not algorithms, may be driving exposure to echo chambers of content.
Commission preliminary finds TikTok in breach of the Digital Services Act. The platform may lead users into harmful 'rabbit holes' by showing them an endless stream of personalised videos, including those related to mental health struggles & body image.https://t.co/lrRYdWCjuH pic.twitter.com/hDwqZwSgnE
TikTok Denounces Statements as Inaccurate
TikTok’s response has been swift.
This legal battle is part of a broader front.
However, internal documents complicate the company’s defense.
The Limits of Scientific Certainty
The debate is complicated by a lack of scientific consensus. A University of Pennsylvania Computational Social Science Lab study found that users, rather than the algorithm, may be driving “filter bubble” effects, though that research found that rabbit holes don’t push viewers towards more extreme political views and did not attempt to measure if rabbit holes on other topics, like body image, could push users towards more extreme and negative perceptions of self.
The EC’s case rests on the argument that TikTok hasn’t sufficiently addressed the harms that result from continually feeding certain content to users. While the correlation between prolonged exposure to certain content and negative psychological outcomes is a subject of research, the Commission focuses on the necessity for TikTok to step up its efforts to protect users’ wellbeing.
A Precedent for the Digital Services Act
This enforcement action is part of a broader effort from European officials going after TikTok.
To comply, TikTok may need to step up its efforts to protect users’ wellbeing. This could involve addressing the business model that the EC claims uses rabbit hole recommendations as a way for TikTok to make money.
