EU Accuses X’s (Twitter) Blue Badge of Misleading Users and May Face Huge Fines

Thierry Breton, the EU Internal Market Commissioner, announced today that the EU’s initial opinion is that X (formerly known as Twitter) has breached the Digital Services Act. The violations concern areas such as ad transparency, X Blue Badge and data access for researchers. This article will explore these findings, their implications, and the potential consequences for X.

Executive VP in charge of competition policy, Margrethe Vestager, said:

“Today we issue for the first time preliminary findings under the Digital Services Act. In our view, X does not comply with the DSA in key transparency areas, by using dark patterns and thus misleading users, by failing to provide an adequate ad repository, and by blocking access to data for researchers. The DSA has transparency at its very core, and we are determined to ensure that all platforms, including X, comply with EU legislation.”

Blue Badge Certification System

Misleading Users

The “Blue Badge Cert” system by X is a major point of concern. Unlike other platforms, X allows anyone to obtain this badge by paying a fee, which can mislead users. This practice affects users’ ability to make free and informed choices about account authenticity and interactive content. Evidence suggests that bad actors have used the “Blue Badge” to deceive users, exploiting this system to their advantage.

Commissioner for Internal Market, Thierry Breton, said:

“Back in the day, BlueChecks used to mean trustworthy sources of information. Now with X, our preliminary view is that they deceive users and infringe the DSA. We also consider that X’s ads repository and conditions for data access by researchers are not in line with the DSA transparency requirements. X has now the right of defence — but if our view is confirmed we will impose fines and require significant changes.”

When users see the X blue badge, they trust that the account is genuine. However, with anyone able to buy the badge, this trust is undermined. The badge, meant to signify authenticity, loses its value, leading to a more risky environment. Users may find it hard to know which accounts are real and which are not, making the platform less reliable.

Ad Transparency Requirements

X has also failed to comply with ad transparency rules. The platform was expected to provide a searchable and reliable ad library. Instead, X introduced design features and access barriers that hinder transparency. These barriers prevent the ad library from serving its purpose of being clear and open to users. This lack of transparency obstructs the necessary oversight and research into the risks posed by online ad distribution.

The failure to ensure ad clarity means users cannot easily access info about the ads they see. This lack of info can lead to a less informed user base, making it easier for bad actors to exploit the system. The design flaws in the ad library prevent users from fully grasping the nature and sources of the ads on the platform.

Researchers rely on ad transparency to study how ads are used and their impacts. Without clear access to this data, it becomes difficult to track and understand new trends and risks in online ads. This gap in knowledge can lead to missed opportunities to address harmful ad practices early on, putting users at risk.

Researcher Data Access

Another key issue is X’s failure to provide researchers with access to its public data as required by the Digital Services Act (DMA). X has prohibited qualified researchers from independently accessing its public data, such as through scraping, in accordance with its terms of service. This restriction limits the ability of researchers to conduct independent studies and understand emerging risks.

Furthermore, the process X has in place for providing an API to qualified researchers appears to be restrictive. Researchers face barriers that prevent them from conducting their projects or force them to pay high fees. This approach stifles independent research and limits the ability to investigate and mitigate potential risks.

Without access to public data, researchers cannot fully analyze and understand the behaviors and trends on the platform. This lack of access can hinder important research that could help improve online safety and transparency. It limits the ability to hold the platform accountable and understand its impact on users.

Potential Fines

If the Commission’s preliminary view is confirmed, X could face huge penalties. The DMA allows for a fine of up to 6% of a company’s global annual total turnover for such violations. For X, this could mean a huge financial penalty, sending a strong message about the importance of compliance.

In addition to fines, the Commission may require X to take measures to address these violations. This could involve changes to the “Blue Badge Certification” system, improvements in ad transparency, and better access for researchers. These steps would aim to align X’s practices with the standards set by the Digital Services Act.

Heavy fines and required changes would not only affect X financially but also push the platform to adopt better practices. These changes could improve user trust and safety, making the platform more reliable. In the long term, this could benefit both users and the platform by fostering a more trustworthy environment.

Moving Forward

X’s Response

X will need to respond to these findings and address the identified issues. The platform has an opportunity to improve its practices and align with the Digital Services Act. By doing so, X can enhance user trust and contribute to a safer online space.

To comply with the Digital Services Act, X will need to take concrete steps. This may include revising the Blue Badge system to make it more trustworthy, redesigning the ad library to improve transparency, and providing better access to public data for researchers. These changes will not only help X comply with regulations but also improve the overall user experience.

Conclusion

The findings against X highlight the importance of adhering to the Digital Services Act. Transparency in ad practices and access for researchers are crucial for a fair and safe online environment. The potential penalties and required measures underscore the EU’s commitment to enforcing these standards.

This case sets a precedent for other platforms operating in the EU. It emphasizes that compliance with the Digital Services Act is non-negotiable and that violations will be met with strict consequences. This approach aims to foster a more transparent and accountable digital landscape.

Other platforms can learn from X’s mistakes by ensuring their systems and practices comply with the Digital Services Act. This includes making sure their ad libraries are transparent and accessible, their verification systems are trustworthy, and researchers have the access they need. By doing so, platforms can avoid similar penalties and contribute to a safer online space.