Analysis - DSA Observatory

Why is enforcement of the DSA systemic risk framework still ignoring environmental risks?

August 21, 2026/in Analysis

By Rachel Griffin

This post argues that environmental risks stemming from major online platforms—including those linked to digital infrastructure, generative AI, targeted advertising and e-commerce—straightforwardly fall within the scope of platforms’ risk management obligations under Articles 34 and 35 of the DSA. The author questions why neither platforms nor the European Commission have meaningfully addressed these risks, and argues that their continued omission reflects political priorities more than legal constraints.

On the importance of “average monthly active recipients” (AMAR) in the recent case law of the General Court

July 31, 2026/in Analysis

By Marie-José Garot, IE University

This post analyses how the General Court has clarified the concept of “average monthly active recipients” through three recent cases (Zalando, Meta, and TikTok). The interpretation given by the Court should oblige the European Commission to set a single methodology for calculating the AMAR, whatever the purpose it serves (for transparency obligations, the designation of VLOPs and VLOSEs, or the calculation of the supervisory fee).

Ineffective by design: Bits of Freedom vs Meta at the forefront of enforcing user control for recommender systems under the DSA

July 30, 2026/in Analysis

By Matteo Fabbri

This post unpacks the legal arguments and implications of Bits of Freedom vs. Meta Ireland, a case which constitutes an important early example of private enforcement of the DSA and may influence EU-wide interpretations for how VLOPSEs must implement user controls for recommender systems.

Platform Governance and Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence: Positioning the DSA in the EU’s Legal Framework

July 13, 2026/in Analysis

This post examines technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV) as a systemic phenomenon shaped by platform design and cross-platform ecosystems, and maps the main EU legal instruments available to address it. It argues that while the Digital Services Act’s systemic risk framework is particularly well suited to tackling the structural drivers of TFGBV, its promise has yet to be realised in practice through implementation and enforcement.

State of Play of DSA Dispute Settlement: Meaningful Redress, Uneven Results

June 8, 2026/in Analysis

After almost two years of certified out-of-court dispute settlement (ODS) bodies operating under Article 21 of the Digital Services Act (DSA), the first transparency reports provide early evidence of how this new due process layer operates in practice. Drawing on 2025 data from multiple ODS bodies, this article assesses what value the system is already delivering, and where current constraints, including platform participation and information-sharing, limit its effectiveness. We discuss possible ways forward, including stronger incentives, technical infrastructure and feedback loops.

Digital Fairness Act: Why we need an ambitious DFA to protect digital consumers from manipulative and addictive design practices

May 19, 2026/in Analysis

By John Albert, Marijn Sax, and Natali Helberger

In this policy brief, we advocate for an ambitious Digital Fairness Act that futureproofs EU consumer law and protects consumers from the full range of unfair digital commercial practices across digital services, including deceptive interfaces, manipulative design, and addictive features. This brief builds on proposals developed in the report “Towards Digital Fairness”.

What makes a risk “systemic”? The CJEU’s first interpretation of systemic risks under the Digital Services Act

May 6, 2026/in Analysis

This post analyses the first major CJEU interpretation of “systemic risks” under the Digital Services Act in Amazon v. European Commission (2025). It argues that the judgment clarifies systemic risks as large-scale societal risks, rejects analogies with financial systemic risk regulation, and provides some guidance on the scope of Article 34 DSA.

If at first you don’t succeed: Reflections on a rejected Art. 40 DSA data access request

March 12, 2026/in Analysis

By Catalina Goanta & Anda Iamnitchi

Article 40 of the Digital Services Act was hailed as a breakthrough for platform research. But what does the the procedure look like in practice? Drawing on their own rejected data access request, the authors reflect candidly on early lessons for the first wave of Article 40 applications, and what researchers should know before applying for access to platform data. Readers are also invited to contribute to an ongoing researcher survey. A webinar with the authors on 20 March (embedded below) unpacks more lessons learned about DSA data access.

How Have Platforms Addressed Addictive Design Under DSA

March 9, 2026/in Analysis

By Cecilia Isola
SERICS (Security and Rights in Cyberspace); University of Genoa

This piece is part of a series with Tech Policy Press featuring articles adapted from selected papers presented at the second DSA and Platform Regulation Conference, an event marking two years since the Digital Services Act came into full effect.

Shareholder Control and the New Politics of Platform Regulation

March 6, 2026/in Analysis

By Paddy Leerssen
University of Amsterdam, Institute for Information Law

This piece is part of a series with Tech Policy Press featuring articles adapted from selected papers presented at the second DSA and Platform Regulation Conference, an event marking two years since the Digital Services Act came into full effect. The author delivered a keynote address at the conference; this article provides a shortened overview of those remarks.