The European Commission’s first report on the Digital Services Act, published Monday, describes the law as “content‑agnostic” and aligned with fundamental rights, while civil society groups and U.S. officials warn it could chill speech and burden American tech firms.
The European Commission on Monday, November 17, 2025, issued its first formal assessment of the Digital Services Act (DSA), a milestone review mandated by Article 91 that maps how the regime interacts with other EU laws and confirms the designation thresholds for very large online platforms and search engines. The Commission presented the DSA as a horizontal, procedural framework and emphasized broad support for clearer guidance and coordination among regulators. (digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu)
In parallel statements this year, senior EU officials have repeatedly described the DSA as “content‑agnostic,” saying the regulation does not define illegal or harmful content but sets due‑process obligations for platforms when such content appears online. In an October 14 parliamentary answer, the Commission reiterated that regulators “do not moderate content or impose any specific approach to moderation.” (europarl.europa.eu)
What the law does
- Penalties: Breaches of DSA obligations can draw fines of up to 6% of a provider’s worldwide annual turnover, with additional periodic penalties for non‑compliance. (digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu)
- Risk assessments: Very large platforms and search engines must identify and mitigate systemic risks, including negative effects on freedom of expression, civic discourse and elections, and the dissemination of illegal content. (eu-digital-services-act.com)
- Redress: Users have rights to contest moderation decisions via platforms’ internal complaint systems and certified out‑of‑court dispute‑settlement bodies. (digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu)
Criticism from free‑speech advocates
Alliance Defending Freedom International (ADF) criticized the Commission’s review as dismissive of free‑speech concerns. In comments to The Daily Wire, ADF senior counsel Dr. Adina Portaru argued that the process lacked robust engagement with dissenting voices and warned that the DSA’s architecture “can impact content creators and influencers and preachers and political dissidents.” She further contended that the DSA’s definition of “illegal content” is overly broad because it encompasses any information not in compliance with EU or Member State law. According to ADF, more than 100 free‑speech experts signed an October letter urging the Commission to address censorship risks, and over 50 NGOs raised similar concerns in September. (Portaru’s remarks and the expert‑letter tally were reported by The Daily Wire and ADF International.) (dailywire.com)
The law’s text defines “illegal content” as information not in compliance with Union law or the law of any Member State, regardless of subject matter, a breadth that civil‑liberties groups argue could incentivize cross‑border takedowns. (europarl.europa.eu)
Commission response
The Commission has maintained that the DSA safeguards lawful speech through procedural rights, transparency, and redress. In communications this year, officials said the law’s aim is to keep the internet safe while protecting fundamental rights and requiring platforms to assess and mitigate risks to freedom of expression. (These points were reflected in an October parliamentary answer and echoed in statements cited by The Daily Wire.) (europarl.europa.eu)
Transatlantic friction
U.S. officials have sharpened their criticism. In late September, U.S. Ambassador to the EU Andrew Puzder told the Financial Times that Washington would file formal submissions during the EU’s ongoing digital‑rule reviews and pressed Brussels to ensure the rules do not “punish” U.S. tech or speech; he added that the sides would need to “sit down and go through these acts with some care.” (ft.com)
In August, Reuters reported that Secretary of State Marco Rubio ordered U.S. diplomats to lobby European governments to amend or repeal aspects of the DSA, citing free‑expression and cost concerns. Earlier, the State Department publicly blasted Europe’s approach to online speech, and in May announced visa restrictions targeting foreign officials allegedly involved in censoring Americans online—measures widely viewed as aimed in part at EU digital policies. (reuters.com)
Broader context in Europe
Recent European cases continue to animate speech debates. Finland’s Supreme Court heard the long‑running case of MP Päivi Räsänen on October 30, 2025, after two lower‑court acquittals over her social‑media and pamphlet statements about sexuality. In the UK, courts have upheld buffer‑zone rules around abortion clinics, including a Bournemouth case where an activist was convicted for breaching a Public Spaces Protection Order; and in Germany, the criminal offense of “Beleidigung” (insult) can draw fines, reflecting a more restrictive posture on certain speech than in the U.S. (christiantoday.com)
What’s next
The Commission’s November 17 report is the first in a series of DSA‑required reviews due by 2027. Separately, on November 20 the Commission and national regulators published an inaugural overview of systemic risks observed on very large platforms, signaling continued enforcement focus on transparency, minors’ safety, and the impacts of emerging technologies. (digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu)
