Meta, TikTok Breached EU Transparency Rules, European Commission Says

 The commission also said Meta was in breach of its obligations to allow users to effectively challenge decisions to ban them from the platforms.

Here’s a breakdown of what’s happening with European Commission’s findings against Meta Platforms (Facebook/Instagram) and TikTok under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) — and why it matters.

What the EU is alleging

• The Commission found preliminary breach findings that Meta and TikTok failed to meet certain transparency obligations under the DSA. UPI+5Digital Strategy+5euronews+5

• For both companies: they allegedly did not provide sufficient access to platform data for accredited researchers. In other words, researchers were presented with “burdensome procedures and tools” and “partial or unreliable data”. TechCrunch+2Digital Strategy+2

• Specifically for Meta (on Facebook & Instagram): The Commission claims the “notice and action” mechanisms (for users to report illegal content) are not easy to use, include unnecessary steps, and use “dark patterns” (design tricks) that discourage users from flagging illegal content (e.g., child sexual abuse material, terrorist content). Digital Strategy+3The Star+3euronews+3

• The platforms now have a chance to respond, but the preliminary findings could lead to fines up to 6% of their global annual turnover if the breaches are confirmed. The Verge+2Digital Strategy+2

---

⚠️ Why this matters

• The DSA is one of the most significant regulatory frameworks for online platforms in the EU: it elevates obligations for “very large online platforms” (VLOPs) to be transparent, manage systemic risks, ensure user-rights, allow research access and improve reporting/flagging systems. The fact that major platforms like Meta and TikTok are subject to this means the bar is high. euronews+1

• If a company this big is found in breach, it sends a signal to other platforms: compliance is mandatory, not optional.

• Researchers and public interest groups have long argued that major platforms obscure how their systems work (especially the algorithmic exposure of minors, harmful content, etc). The EU’s finding touches directly on that transparency gap.

• For users: It means the EU expects platforms to empower users to flag illegal content (not just passive consumption) and to allow accountability of platforms through research and oversight.

• For the companies: Fines of up to 6% of global turnover could amount to billions of dollars given their size. They also must change the way they operate in Europe (which may have knock-on effects elsewhere).

---

👥 How Meta & TikTok responded

• Meta says it disagrees with the suggestion of a breach, and says it has “introduced changes to our content reporting options, appeals process, and data access tools since the DSA came into force” and will continue working with the Commission. The Independent+1

• TikTok said it is “reviewing” the findings but pointed out that its obligations under the DSA may conflict with the EU’s privacy law General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and urged clarity on how the two legal obligations should be reconciled. TechCrunch

---

🔍 What’s next / What to watch

• These are preliminary findings, not final rulings. Meta and TikTok will have the chance to respond and defend themselves. The final outcome could include enforcement decisions and potential fines.

• If the companies don’t remedy the gaps identified (or convincingly argue otherwise), the EU could impose the full potential fine (6% of global turnover).

• We should watch for the specific remedies the EU demands: e.g., changes to the reporting interface, researcher-access tools, appeals mechanisms for moderated content.

• How Meta and TikTok adapt their systems in Europe might influence how they operate globally (or how they treat other jurisdictions).

• The question of conflict between DSA transparency obligations and privacy/data protection laws (like GDPR) is a key challenge. If obligations pull in different directions, platforms may raise legal arguments on conflicting laws.