A Fine Built On Paperwork, Not Just Posts
The European Commission's first fine under the Digital Services Act was never really about a single piece of harmful content. On December 5, 2025, the Commission fined X 120 million euros for three separate transparency failures: a blue checkmark that implied identity verification without requiring it, an advertising repository too broken for outside researchers to search properly and a data-access process that blocked eligible researchers from studying the platform at all.
The Commission's own language on the first violation was blunt. The DSA "clearly prohibits online platforms from falsely claiming that users have been verified, when no such verification took place." X disputed the finding and, on February 16, 2026, filed an appeal at the EU General Court arguing the process itself was unfair and prosecutorially biased.
Ten Months Later, A Government Joined The Appeal
On September 24, 2026, the US Department of Justice asked the EU General Court for permission to join X's case, not as a bystander but as a party arguing the Commission never had the authority to fine X in the first place. Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate framed the objection in jurisdictional terms: "The European Commission inappropriately attempted to expand its regulatory authority to reach American companies not present or operating within its jurisdiction."
The Commission's public position has not shifted. Its officials describe DSA enforcement as nationality-neutral, applying the same transparency duties to any very large platform serving EU users regardless of where that platform is headquartered. X operates across the EU with hundreds of millions of users, which is the entire basis on which the DSA claims authority over it.
Three Filings, Ten Months
The case against X has taken three distinct legal shapes in under a year, and each shape changed who gets to argue it.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| December 5, 2025 | European Commission fines X 120 million euros for DSA transparency violations |
| February 16, 2026 | X appeals the fine at the EU General Court, citing due process concerns |
| September 24, 2026 | US Department of Justice files to join X's appeal on jurisdictional grounds |
A Test Case Bigger Than One Platform
A win for the jurisdictional argument would not just spare X 120 million euros. It would hand every US platform fined under EU digital law a template: ask your own government to argue the fine never had a valid legal basis, before ever arguing about the underlying conduct. That turns an ordinary regulatory appeal, which EU courts are built to resolve case by case on the facts, into a state-to-state dispute over whether EU digital law can reach American companies at all.
The Digital Services Act is not the only EU law built on the same jurisdictional premise. The GDPR, the Digital Markets Act and the AI Act all claim authority over any company serving EU users, not only companies headquartered in the EU. If the DOJ's argument gains traction in this case, it becomes a reference point available to any US company facing enforcement under any of those laws.
What Anyone Relying On The DSA Should Watch
Companies and researchers who treat the DSA as an enforceable guarantee, not just a policy statement, now have a reason to watch procedure as closely as outcome. X qualifies as one of roughly two dozen platforms the Commission designated large enough to police directly, meaning this fight over jurisdiction runs through the Commission itself rather than through any single national regulator.
The Commission's roughly two dozen VLOP designations mean this jurisdictional fight is being fought at EU level, not inside any single member state's courts.
The EU General Court has set no ruling date. Until it rules, the findings against X remain contested rather than settled, and so does the Commission's authority to have found them in the first place.
Read next: Brussels Just Reclassified ChatGPT as a Search Engine | 367 Million: Two Thirds of X's Ad Business Gone
