The platform X, formerly Twitter, may escape the new stringent rules of the European Digital Markets Act (DMA) due to its limited presence in Europe. Despite an investigation opened by the European Commission regarding misinformation and the use of personal data, X finds itself in a position where it is not considered sufficiently central to fall under the restrictive measures of the DMA.
Limited weight in Europe
For a company to be subject to the rigorous provisions of the DMA, it must have a significant influence on the European digital market. X, although it has a loyal user base, does not hold a large enough market share in Europe to attract the regulators’ attention as a priority. Its relatively limited impact could thus protect it from the enforcement of the DMA’s binding measures.
European regulations and digital platforms
The DMA was designed to regulate digital giants and ensure they cannot abuse their dominant market position. This legislation primarily targets platforms with a multitude of active users and significant influence in the digital market. In contrast, X, while a recognized media figure, does not currently present the necessary scale to be directly affected by this strict legislation.
European Commission Investigation
Despite its limited influence, X remains under the scrutiny of the European Commission. An investigation has been opened to examine misinformation practices on the platform. The Commission aims to determine whether X complies with European requirements for transparency and combating false information. This investigation could result in recommendations or sanctions against X, independent of the DMA.
Use of personal data
X has been criticized for using the personal data of its European users to enhance its artificial intelligence program. This practice, if not compliant with European data protection regulations, could lead to distinct sanctions even if the platform is not directly affected by the DMA.
Potential consequences and speculation
Some analysts have speculated about a potential ban of X in the European Union, but this remains unlikely. However, the current investigation by the European Commission could lead to measures aimed at strengthening X’s compliance with European standards without necessarily resulting in a ban.
The case of X illustrates the gap that can exist between the theoretical scope of European regulations and their practical application. For X, the challenge will be to navigate between compliance with European expectations and limiting its influence, which could paradoxically protect it from stricter regulations. The verdict of the European Commission, despite its criticisms, may ultimately reflect this ambivalent reality regarding X’s importance in the European market.
