According to the group, the corporation is also in violation of the Digital Services Act since it acts in a manner that is difficult for researchers.
The most recent famous technology business to find itself in a precarious situation with the European Union is X. An inquiry has been conducted, and the preliminary findings have been disclosed by the European Commission, which is the executive arm of the bloc. It asserts that X has committed multiple violations of the Digital Services Act (DSA) in a variety of different ways.
The European Union has taken a keen interest in the manner in which the platform handles paid verification. The method, according to the officials, “does not correspond to industry practice and deceives users.” In addition, it was stated that because anyone may pay to obtain a blue checkmark, it is difficult for anyone to evaluate the authenticity of accounts (a browser plugin can tell you which accounts are confirmed due to notability and which paid for a checkmark). The European Union (EU) also stated that there is evidence of dishonest individuals fooling people by utilizing checkmarks.
The issues that X has been having with verification date back several years. At least at the time when it was still known as Twitter, the blue check was a type of assurance that was reasonably trustworthy in determining whether or not an account was genuine. It appears that paid checkmarks and the increased visibility that Premium members receive have led to an increase in the number of frauds and spam, which is exactly what many people warned would happen.
Following that, the European Union (EU) voiced its disapproval of what it perceived to be X’s lack of transparency in advertising. Additionally, it asserted that the organization does not own a trustworthy and searchable ad library that would make it possible for scholars to investigate “emerging risks brought about by the distribution of advertising online.”
According to the European Union, X is in violation of the Data Protection Act (DSA) since it does not provide researchers with adequate access to public data. Specifically, according to the terms of service, “X prohibits eligible researchers from independently accessing its public data, such as by scraping,” the bloc asserted in a statement. “Scraping” is an example of how this prohibition is written. Given the manner in which X has organized its application programming interfaces (APIs), the European Union (EU) believes that researchers are either discouraged from carrying out projects or are compelled to pay “disproportionately high fees” in order to do so.
In the past, the term “Blue Checks” was commonly used to refer to reliable methods of gathering information. Thierry Breton, the commissioner for the internal market of the European Union, issued a statement in which he stated, “Now with X, our preliminary view is that they deceive users and infringe the deceptive service act.” Additionally, we are of the opinion that the conditions for data access by researchers and the advertisements repository that X maintains do not comply with the DSA’s criteria for transparency. The right of defense is now available to X; however, if our opinion is validated, we will impose fines and demand serious adjustments.
In the event that X is found guilty, it will be subject to fines that can reach up to six percent of its annual turnover around the globe. This may provide us with an idea of how much money the company, which is now privately held, is making at the present time. The European Union may also direct X to adopt measures to ensure compliance with the Data Protection Act (DSA), and if the firm does not comply, additional periodic fines may be imposed.
The Digital Services Act (DSA) and its brother legislation, the Digital Markets Act, have not been bashful about the European Union (EU) taking action against technology corporations. In the event that the preliminary findings of investigations are confirmed, both Meta and Apple could be held liable for fines that amount to multiple billions of dollars.