Enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA) – effective reporting channels, legal remedies and dispute settlement
6.1.2026
Question for written answer E-000017/2026
to the Commission
Rule 144
Pascal Arimont (PPE)
In its report ‘Rights Without Reach – The DSA put to the test’[1], HateAid examined how large platforms such as YouTube, Facebook or X implement the key rights of the Digital Service Act (DSA), in particular those laid down in Articles 16, 20 and 21. The investigation found, among other things, that after exhausting all available legal remedies, only 57 % of reported illegal content was removed during the project period. While 24 % of internal complaints about a negative decision were successful in 2024, this figure fell to just 7.2 % in 2025. Moreover, according to the report, excessive complexity, non-transparent structuring, deterrent wording and targeted design elements systematically complicated the reporting of illegal content. What is more, proceedings often remained without a decision for more than 90 or 180 days.
- 1.What specific steps (including a timeline) is the Commission taking with regard to the very large online platforms (VLOPs) concerned to ensure user-friendly reporting channels that are clearly identifiable as DSA mechanisms, in accordance with Article 16 of the DSA?
- 2.How does the Commission review and enforce the obligations to indicate when decisions are automated (Article 16(6)) and the prohibition of making decisions on complaints solely on the basis of automated means (Article 20(6))?
- 3.Does the Commission intend to introduce guidelines and/or minimum standards on the effectiveness of out-of-court dispute settlement under Article 21 (time limits, justification, status information, implementation by platforms) and, if so, by when?
Submitted: 6.1.2026
- [1] https://hateaid.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/hateaid-dsa-rights-without-reach-2025.pdf