The European Commission:

Today, the Commission has informed X of its preliminary view that it is in breach of the Digital Services Act (DSA) in areas linked to dark patterns, advertising transparency, and data access for researchers…

First, X designs and operates its interface for the “verified accounts” with the “Blue checkmark” in a way that does not correspond to industry practice and deceives users. Since anyone can subscribe to obtain such a “verified” status, it negatively affects users' ability to make free and informed decisions about the authenticity of the accounts and the content they interact with. There is evidence of motivated malicious actors abusing the “verified account” to deceive users.

Second, X does not comply with the required transparency on advertising, as it does not provide a searchable and reliable advertisement repository, but instead put in place design features and access barriers that make the repository unfit for its transparency purpose towards users. In particular, the design does not allow for the required supervision and research into emerging risks brought about by the distribution of advertising online.

Third, X fails to provide access to its public data to researchers in line with the conditions set out in the DSA. In particular, X prohibits eligible researchers from independently accessing its public data, such as by scraping, as stated in its terms of service. In addition, X’s process to grant eligible researchers access to its application programming interface (API) appears to dissuade researchers from carrying out their research projects or leave them with no other choice than to pay disproportionally high fees.

I strongly agree with the letter of the DSA in regard to the second and third points: Being upfront with advertising is a law that should exist, does exist, and should be enforced, and any user of X knows that the company is not transparent with its advertising and employs dark patterns to encourage people to click ads. And X does not provide data access via the API to researchers, either, making it difficult to combat illegal content, especially related to child safety and elections. These are good reasons to ding X under the DSA, and I support them — an unusual position coming from me. But then, Thierry Breton, the commissioner for the E.U. market, had to ruin it with an impudent post on X, in typical Breton style:

Back in the day, #BlueChecks used to mean trustworthy sources of information ✔️🐦

Now with X, our preliminary view is that:

❌They deceive users

❌They infrige #DSA

X has now the right of defence — but if our view is confirmed we will impose fines & require significant changes.

Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of X, responded quite embarrassingly:

How we [sic] know you’re real?

Unfortunately, I have to admit I agree with Breton’s frustration regarding blue check marks, something I can’t believe I just wrote. But the law, the DSA, is another crock of nonsense. Why isn’t a private company not allowed to sell a badge for $8 a month, even if that badge previously meant something else? That isn’t even capitalism, that’s just the ability to conduct business. Does the European Commission not want companies to do business in the European Union? It sure seems like it. Once again, I don’t disagree with the fact that blue check marks on X are misleading, but regulators can’t regulate with spite. The only way for this fine — $500 million, 10 percent of X’s global revenue — to be justifiable would be for the European Commission to add a clause to the DSA that says: “The European Commission is given the sole right to modify a company’s user interface however it pleases.”

The European Union’s punitive action has made me take the side of the worst companies I know: Meta and X. Alas, here we are. But Breton was right about two points — and correct about the first in spirit. The worst commissioner you know made a great point.