Europe’s New Disinformation Code: A Transatlantic Clash Over Online Speech
The European Union’s Code of Conduct on Disinformation, once a voluntary framework, has become a legally binding instrument under the Digital Services Act (DSA). As of July 1, 2025, very large online platforms (VLOPs) and search engines (VLOSEs) must comply with stricter transparency and auditing requirements designed to combat the spread of disinformation. Compliance with the Code is now a critical component of DSA compliance and a key risk mitigation measure. Tech companies will be required to demonstrate their adherence to these commitments during upcoming audits, facing potential scrutiny and penalties from the European Commission if they fall short.
This move comes at a sensitive time, coinciding with critical trade negotiations between the EU and the US. The EU has firmly stated that the DSA and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) are not up for negotiation, emphasizing that the implementation of its legislation will not be influenced by the actions of other countries. This stance mirrors Canada’s experience with the US after implementing its own digital services tax on American tech giants. Following US criticism and the suspension of trade talks, Canada ultimately repealed the tax, highlighting the pressure faced by countries enacting digital regulations that impact US tech companies.
The EU’s strengthened approach to disinformation is drawing accusations of censorship, particularly from the US. Critics, including some US officials, argue that the DSA’s requirements for platforms to systematically address disinformation could lead to de facto global censorship standards, potentially restricting online speech for Americans and others outside the EU.
The European Commission rejects these accusations, emphasizing that the Code and the DSA are designed to promote a transparent, fair, and safe online environment while fully upholding fundamental rights, including freedom of expression. The focus, the Commission argues, is not on censoring individual pieces of content but rather on addressing systemic risks, increasing transparency and accountability within platforms, and empowering users with more context and tools for online navigation. They argue that the DSA targets the opaque algorithms and advertising networks that shape what users see, not the content itself. The Commission also highlights that the DSA mandates transparency in content moderation practices, including “shadow banning,” and provides users with mechanisms to challenge moderation decisions.
Some experts believe that the "censorship" framing is a deliberate tactic to stifle efforts to address the spread of disinformation. They argue that the real issue is the suppression of moderate speech due to the design of recommender algorithms that prioritize engagement-maximizing, often polarizing content. These algorithms amplify sensationalist and divisive content, while efforts to address this dynamic are mischaracterized as censorship. This rhetoric, they contend, discourages engagement from civil society, advertisers, and funders, ultimately hindering progress in combating disinformation.
The Code of Practice, which originated as a voluntary initiative in 2018 and was strengthened in 2022, now sets the standard for risk mitigation under the DSA. While signing onto the Code remains voluntary, platforms are expected to meet the standards it outlines, with failure to do so potentially affecting their DSA compliance audits. These annual audits will assess, in part, whether platforms have adequately addressed disinformation risks, using the Code commitments as benchmarks.
Civil society organizations involved in the Code’s development stress the importance of robust audits for the effectiveness of the DSA. They highlight the need for a clear audit framework, access to meaningful data, and the integration of civil society expertise to ensure credible assessments. Concerns have also been raised regarding some VLOPSEs unsubscribing from their Code commitments and the need for harmonized risk identification and assessment methodologies across platforms and auditors.
The evolving disinformation strategy of the EU presents a complex challenge involving both enforcement and the framing of the issue. As transatlantic trade talks continue, Brussels maintains that its digital regulations are non-negotiable, even amidst concerns about censorship and regulatory overreach. The true test lies in whether platforms will embrace meaningful reforms and whether the Commission’s audits possess the necessary clarity and authority to ensure accountability. The success of the Code, experts argue, hinges on transparent data, credible audits, and a determined commitment from the European Commission to enforce the new regulations.