Some links on this page are affiliate links: if you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you.
The European Commission said on October 24, 2025, that it had preliminarily found Meta and TikTok in breach of certain transparency obligations under the EU Digital Services Act (DSA). Both companies were accused of making it too difficult for researchers to access public platform data. The Commission also made separate preliminary findings about Facebook and Instagram’s illegal-content reporting and content-moderation appeal systems.
This was not a final infringement decision, court judgment, or announced fine. Meta and TikTok were given an opportunity to inspect the evidence, respond, challenge the findings, or offer commitments to address the concerns.
What the European Commission found
The proceedings concerned practical access and usable procedures—not simply whether Meta or TikTok published transparency reports.
The Commission preliminarily found that:
- Meta and TikTok failed to provide researchers with adequate access to public data.
- Facebook and Instagram did not provide sufficiently simple ways for users to report illegal content.
- Facebook and Instagram did not give users an effective enough way to challenge content-moderation decisions.
The findings were announced within broader DSA proceedings involving the companies. They did not establish that every Meta or TikTok product had violated every DSA obligation.
#1 Best Overall
The Commission’s announcement remains the primary source for the allegations and procedural status.
Which platform was accused of what?
| Company or platform | Preliminary issue identified |
|---|---|
| TikTok | Researcher access to public platform data |
| Meta | Researcher access to public platform data |
| Researcher access, illegal-content reporting, and moderation appeals | |
| Researcher access, illegal-content reporting, and moderation appeals |
This distinction matters. The researcher-access finding applied to TikTok and Meta, while the additional reporting and appeal findings specifically concerned Facebook and Instagram.
Why researcher access matters
Independent researchers need reliable platform data to examine questions that companies’ own reports may not answer, including:
- whether minors are exposed to illegal or harmful content;
- how recommendation systems distribute or amplify material;
- whether moderation systems apply rules consistently;
- how platform design affects elections and public discourse; and
- whether a platform’s internal risk assessment matches outside evidence.
The Commission’s concern was not necessarily that no data was available. It was that the companies’ application procedures and technical tools could be burdensome, resulting in partial or unreliable datasets.
That can make independent research difficult even when a platform formally offers a research programme. A researcher may receive data that excludes important categories, is difficult to validate, or cannot support meaningful comparisons over time.
What “transparency” means in this case
In the DSA context, transparency is broader than publishing statistics about content removals or releasing an annual report. It can also mean giving qualified researchers practical access to public data and ensuring that users can exercise procedural rights in a usable way.
For researcher access, the issue is how the system works in practice: who can apply, what information must be supplied, what data is delivered, how reliable it is, and whether safeguards make access possible without creating unnecessary barriers.
For users, a reporting or appeals channel can exist on paper but still be ineffective if it requires too many steps, uses confusing categories, prevents the user from explaining context, or does not allow supporting evidence.
The separate findings involving Facebook and Instagram
Reporting illegal content
The Commission said Facebook and Instagram did not provide sufficiently simple mechanisms for users to notify them about illegal content. It referred to unnecessary steps that could discourage or confuse users and characterized the alleged design problems as possible “dark patterns.”
A workable reporting system should allow a user to identify potentially illegal material without requiring an unnecessarily complicated process or demanding that the user determine the precise legal classification before submitting a report.
Appealing moderation decisions
The Commission also preliminarily found that users in the EU did not have an effective enough way to challenge content-moderation decisions. In particular, users allegedly could not fully explain why a decision was wrong or provide supporting evidence.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →An appeal channel is therefore not judged only by whether a button exists. Its practical value also depends on whether the person can describe context, identify an error, submit relevant information, and receive a meaningful review.
How Meta and TikTok responded
Meta disputed the suggestion that it had breached the DSA. It said it had already made changes to its content-reporting options, appeals process, and data-access tools, and maintained that its EU systems complied with the law.
TikTok said it had made substantial investments in data sharing and had provided access to nearly 1,000 research teams through its research tools. It also argued that loosening data safeguards could create tension between DSA access requirements and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
TikTok’s GDPR point is a position advanced by the company, not an established conclusion that the two laws are legally incompatible. Research access may need safeguards for personal information, sensitive content, trade secrets, and security-sensitive material. The Commission’s concern was whether the companies’ procedures provided adequate access under the DSA—not whether every researcher should receive unrestricted raw data.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →TechCrunch reported the companies’ responses, including TikTok’s statement about nearly 1,000 research teams and Meta’s objections.
What happens next?
A preliminary finding is an important enforcement step, but it is not the end of the case. Meta and TikTok could:
- inspect the Commission’s investigation documents;
- submit responses and challenge the preliminary conclusions;
- offer commitments or corrective measures; and
- continue discussions while the Commission examines the matter.
The Commission could ultimately confirm, change, or reject some or all of the preliminary findings. It could also continue investigating other possible breaches within the wider proceedings.
Based on the official Commission material identified for this article, the matter was still described as preliminary; that official page was updated on April 30, 2026. The available material does not establish a later final decision, settlement, or penalty. Accordingly, it would be inaccurate to report that Meta or TikTok had already been fined in this matter.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesCould Meta or TikTok be fined?
For confirmed DSA breaches, penalties can reach up to 6% of a company’s worldwide annual turnover. That is a statutory maximum, not an indication that either company will receive a fine of that size.
Best Value
The possible outcomes are different:
- a preliminary finding;
- a final infringement decision;
- a commitment decision;
- an order to remedy a violation;
- a financial penalty; or
- recurring or coercive measures for failing to comply.
The October 2025 announcement was the first item on that list. It did not itself impose the maximum—or any—fine.
When did the broader investigations begin?
The Commission formally opened proceedings involving Meta and TikTok in 2024. Those proceedings covered multiple issues, not only researcher access.
Reporting at the time described the TikTok investigation as also involving advertising transparency, content moderation, and the protection of minors. Meta’s proceedings included concerns about Facebook and Instagram’s compliance with obligations applying to very large online platforms, including election-related risks.
The October 2025 announcement therefore addressed specific preliminary findings within broader proceedings rather than concluding every issue under investigation.
Why the case matters
The case could influence how platforms design researcher-access programmes and user-facing legal processes across the EU.
For researchers, meaningful access can improve independent evidence about platform harms and make it easier to test companies’ risk assessments. For users, simpler reporting and appeal tools can determine whether DSA rights are practical rather than merely theoretical.
For platforms, the dispute highlights a difficult compliance balance. More data access can improve accountability, but platform data may contain personal information and commercially or security-sensitive material. The regulatory question is how to provide useful access with proportionate safeguards—not whether privacy protections should disappear.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
For businesses, journalists, and investors following platform regulation, the procedural distinction is essential: the Commission’s announcement signaled serious concerns and possible future remedies, but it did not yet establish a final violation or financial liability.
Quick Recap
What readers should not infer
- This was not a final court judgment.
- The European Commission—not an EU court—issued the preliminary findings.
- Meta and TikTok were not announced as having received a fine in the cited material.
- The findings did not say that every Meta or TikTok service breached every DSA rule.
- The allegations differed between TikTok, Meta generally, Facebook, and Instagram.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
