On Friday, the European Union imposed a substantial financial penalty of €120 million—equivalent to roughly $140 million in U.S. currency—on social media platform X for contravening provisions of the Digital Services Act (DSA). This decisive action marked a significant milestone in the implementation of the DSA, as it represented the very first occasion on which a company had been formally sanctioned under this relatively new and far-reaching law. The fine underlined the EU’s growing determination to assert regulatory authority over large technology platforms whose global operations intersect with European digital rights and safety standards.
Elon Musk, the owner and public face of X, reacted to the Commission’s decision in a manner entirely consistent with his characteristic bluntness and controversial communication style. Rather than offering a measured corporate response or a formal statement through official channels, Musk took to X itself—his own platform—to post a single, curt word: “Bullshit.” This sharp and profane outburst functioned not only as a spontaneous expression of disdain but also as a symbolic rejection of the EU’s regulatory rationale. His comment swiftly ricocheted across the platform, drawing immediate attention from both supporters who viewed it as a defense of free expression and critics who interpreted it as further evidence of his disregard for professional decorum.
Yet the episode did not conclude with Musk’s brief but inflammatory remark. The following day, Nikita Bier, X’s head of product, escalated the situation by publicly accusing the European Commission of exploiting what he described as a digital loophole to amplify the visibility of its post announcing the fine. According to Bier, the Commission engaged in behavior inconsistent with platform policy by using a post format strictly reserved for advertisements, thereby effectively turning its announcement into a pseudo-promotional message. In what appeared to be a direct act of retaliation—or at minimum a symbolic assertion of control—Bier responded to these alleged irregularities by disabling the Commission’s advertising account on X.
Bier further elaborated that the European Commission had not made use of its advertising privileges on the platform since 2021. Nonetheless, in its statement publicizing the penalty against X, the Commission allegedly chose to employ a specialized ad-post format designed for paid promotions rather than the ordinary posting interface available to regular users. As Bier explained, this decision had the effect of misleading users into believing they were engaging with a video post, while in reality, the structure served to artificially expand the message’s reach and visibility. He asserted that the link embedded in the post “deceives users into thinking it’s a video,” implying that the Commission had intentionally manipulated platform mechanics to maximize exposure. For clarity, although Bier described the link as deceptive, the post in question did in fact contain a video segment, further complicating the interpretation of his claim.
Despite the apparent drama of revoking the European Commission’s ad account, this maneuver is unlikely to produce any substantial or lasting—let alone material—impact for either party. If Bier’s assertion that the Commission has not used its ad account in more than two years is accurate, then the act of suspending access to it functions more as a symbolic gesture of defiance than as an effective leverage tool. The European Union, for its part, is unlikely to experience any disruption of communication capabilities as a result. Meanwhile, X remains financially and legally obligated to contend with the significant €120 million fine. The company retains the right to appeal the decision through appropriate legal channels, but until such an appeal is heard and resolved, the penalty remains binding.
Moreover, the EU has set a strict compliance timetable for X to address other concerns raised during the course of the DSA enforcement proceedings. Specifically, within the next sixty days, the company must submit a comprehensive report detailing the steps it intends to take to correct what regulators have characterized as misleading or “deceptive” uses of verified checkmarks—a feature previously linked to identity verification and authenticity but now employed under a modified subscription-based model. Failure to meet this deadline or to satisfy the Commission’s transparency requirements could expose X to additional sanctions beyond the already hefty monetary fine.
At the time of publication, representatives from X indicated that outreach had been made to the European Commission for an official response or further comment on these developments. The Commission’s perspective on Bier’s accusations and on the broader dispute surrounding the application of the Digital Services Act has not yet been formally articulated. Updates will be provided as soon as new information becomes available, adding yet another layer of complexity to an evolving confrontation that has come to epitomize the friction between assertive regulatory governance and the libertarian ethos dominating parts of the technology industry.
Sourse: https://www.theverge.com/news/839742/x-cuts-off-the-european-commissions-ad-account
