The EU Is Serious About Regulating X 

Elon Musk and the European Union have been engaging in an escalating battle over freedom of speech that could affect millions on both sides of the Atlantic.

This battle was taken up a notch in December of 2025 when the European Commission imposed a €120 million fine against X (formerly Twitter) and Musk personally, for alleged violations of the EU’s newly-enforced Digital Services Act (DSA). It marks the very first use of sanctions under the DSA’s legal framework.

The Commission has alleged that the DSA was violated by: (a) X’s “blue checkmark” verification system being deceptive, since anyone can acquire verification by paying; (b) X lacking sufficient transparency about its advertisers; and (c) X failing to provide vetted researchers (EU approved entities) with sufficient data to assess systemic risks posed by X’s policies and procedures.  The purpose of all three of these DSA requirements are, in part, to combat hate speech and disinformation on the Internet.

On February 16, 2026, X and Musk filed suit before the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), challenging the Commission’s fine.  Unfortunately, the CJEU does not make initial pleadings in cases publicly available, so it is not possible to determine the exact legal basis for the suit.  X, however, was quick to go public, rebuking the Commission by remarking that:

This EU Decision resulted from an incomplete and superficial investigation, grave procedural errors, a tortured interpretation of the obligations under the DSA, and systematic breaches of rights of defence and basic due process requirements suggesting prosecutorial bias.

Oddly, X’s statement did not mention freedom of speech as one of the grounds asserted in its suit.

The Fine Comes After Two Years of Vitriol

The 2025 fine comes after two years of investigation by the Commission focusing on alleged dissemination of “illegal content” and alleged failures of X’s content moderation.

Since then, Musk has accused the EU of censorship, and called it a “tyrannical unelected bureaucracy.”  He asserted that the EU offered X an illegal “secret deal” to censor speech in exchange for not imposing a fine against it.  He called for the abolition of the EU, and a return of sovereignty of individual EU member states.  He reposted content comparing the EU with Nazi Germany.

Representatives of the EU have, themselves, been quite vociferous in their criticisms of Musk and X, although perhaps not offering insults as blatant as Musk’s.  

In particular, Thierry Breton, former EU Commissioner for the Internal Market frequently tweeted criticisms about X and Musk.  

Shortly after Musk’s acquisition of Twitter in October of 2022, in response to Musk’s tweet that, “The bird is freed,” Breton tweeted, “In Europe, the bird will fly by our rules.”

Then, in May of 2023, after X withdrew from the EU’s voluntary Code of Practice on Disinformation, Breton tweeted, “You can run but you can’t hide,” then reminded X of its legal obligations to moderate disinformation under the DSA.

A year later, a mere three days after Hamas’s attack on Israel in 2023, Breton alleged that X was “being used to  disseminate illegal content and disinformation” about the conflict, demanding that Musk immediately cause X to take down such  content.  

In August of 2024, Breton issued an open letter to Musk which he stated was in relation to a planned live broadcast of an interview between Musk and then-candidate Donald Trump.  The letter reminded Musk that X has an obligation under the DSA to put mitigation measures in place “regarding amplification of harmful content,” including “content that incites violence, hate and racism in the EU.”

This letter drew harsh backlash, including from U.S. politicians and free speech NGOs, who interpreted it as an attempt to censor controversial views. The EU Commission itself distanced itself from Breton’s letter saying it was not coordinated or agreed upon in advance. Musk’s response was to post a clip from the movie Tropic Thunder that stated: “Take a step back and literally, fuck your own face!”

Breton resigned from the Commission the following month for unspecified reasons. Breton has continued to criticize Musk for his support for Germany’s far-right AfD party. In January of 2025 Breton accused Musk of “lying like hell” in claiming that the EU had tried to squelch an interview with an AfD representative.

Breton’s successor, Stéphane Séjourné, has been more measured in his approach to Musk and X, focusing on EU rules, and the issuance of sanctions, rather than engaging in a war of words with Musk, or direct accusations that X is promoting violence, hate and racism. Musk has continued his attacks on the EU and its policies but has so far been restrained in personal attacks on Séjourné.

Musk’s Free Speech Credentials Are Open to Question

Musk has fashioned himself as something of a free speech warrior, describing himself as a free speech “absolutist” and frequently posting on X phrases like “freedom of speech is the bedrock of democracy.”  He has claimed that he acquired Twitter (X) “to preserve freedom of speech in America.” He also has exclaimed that a “[s]urefire way to figure out who the bad guys are is by looking at who wants to restrict freedom of speech.”

It is fair to ask, however, whether Musk has lived up to his self-proclaimed image as a free speech absolutist. It is hard to find criticisms of free speech infringements outside of restrictions imposed on X. When free speech has been restricted by the Trump Administration, Musk has been consistently silent.

In fact, a search of Musk’s postings on X reveal no public criticisms of Trump for any of the following: (a) crackdowns on peaceful protests against ICE; (b) efforts to cancel Jimmy Kimmel; (c) efforts to coerce changes in curriculums at Harvard and other universities; (d) efforts to pressure large law firms to refuse cases challenging Trump policies; (e) attempts by the Trump administration to prosecute members of Congress for expressing that members of the military should not follow illegal orders; and (f) ordering the elimination of references to slavery at federal museums and parks.  

The EU’s Interpretation of Free Speech is Open to Debate

The DSA is the law on which the European Commission primarily seeks to regulate disinformation and hate speech on Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) like X.  What is problematic, however, is that the DSA itself contains no cogent definition of either disinformation or hate speech.  Rather, the oft-cited definition of disinformation (found in the rather obscure 2020 EU document entitled the European Commission’s Communication on the European Democracy Action Plan (EDAP)) is: “false or misleading content that is spread with an intention to deceive or secure economic or political gain and which may cause public harm.” 

The oft-quoted standard used to identify hate speech (which emanates from an EU document commonly referred to as 2008 Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia) is: “publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.”

These rather elastic and subjective standards for determining illegal or harmful content on Internet Platforms is left to an ad hoc process that involves analysis involving vetted researchers that are part of the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), a “Rapid Alert System”, and “Trusted Flaggers.”

Nevertheless, the EU is required to protect the right to freedom of expression, as enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. So, it appears that there is fertile ground for an open debate about whether the EU’s enforcement of the DSA’s regulation of disinformation and hate speech has been, or even can be, consistent with fundamental guarantees of freedom of speech (in Europe freedom of expression).

The Dispute Has Become Increasingly Political

The feud between the EU and Musk has expanded into the political arena. President Trump has called the fine imposed on X and Musk as “nasty,” and warned that “Europe has to be very careful.” 

Vice President Vance has called the allegations against X “censorship” and “garbage.”  Vance also famously lambasted European “commissars” for alleged attacks on free speech in his address to the Munich Security Conference in 2025.

Secretary of State Rubio has characterized the fines as “an attack on all American tech,” and “extraterritorial censorship.” And in December of 2025, the State Department announced visa bans against five Europeans, including Thierry Breton and several NGO executives, involved in internet content moderation and enforcement of the DSA. Rubio characterized the move as being necessary to counter the “global censorship-industrial complex.”

The EU and European national leaders have condemned the ban, denied accusations of censorship, and affirmed their commitment to freedom of expression.

Congressional Republicans also have weighed in on the subject. On February 3, 2026, the House Judiciary Committee released a report which alleges that, although the EU’s efforts were “ostensibly meant to combat ‘misinformation’ and ‘hate speech,’” “[f]or the last ten years, the European Commission has directly pressured platforms to censor lawful, political speech in the European Union and abroad.”

Musk’s comment about the report was, “tyrants love censorship.” 

The EU Commission’s spokesman responded angrily to the report, calling it “pure nonsense” and “completely unfounded,” also stating that “freedom of expression is a fundamental right in Europe.” 

The EU, as well the UK and French governments, continue to investigate X, most recently for Grok’s AI “deep fake” function allowing photographs to be altered so that people are depicted nude.  The French even went so far as to raid X’s offices in Paris to seize evidence in relation to such deep fakes, as well as distribution of child sexual abuse and holocaust denial materials.  French authorities have also summoned Musk for questioning in this investigation.

Musk has criticized the French investigation as politically motivated, although he has since modified Grok’s image generation function.  

Emmanual Macron has entered the fray, recently criticizing social media companies for “having no clue about how their algorithm is made, how it’s tested, trained and where it will guide you.” He continued, “Free speech is pure bullshit if nobody knows how you are guided to this so-called free speech, especially when it is guided from one hate speech to another.”

Perhaps the CJEU’s Involvement Will Be Helpful

It would arguably be in the public’s interest on both sides of the Atlantic to have a reasoned debate about the potential effect regulation of disinformation and hate speech on the Internet might have on free speech principles. Unfortunately, however, this debate has devolved into a vitriolic shouting match. 

A useful debate also is hindered by the fact that Musk and many American politicians are not consistent in their protestations about free speech, haranguing Europeans for the DSA while ignoring free speech infringements by the Trump administration.

The EU, however, has not done a good job of explaining how the DSA can be enforced in a manner that sufficiently protects against filtering or removal of speech that may be controversial, but not reasonably deemed illegal.

For those who care about protecting free speech but also are concerned about the societal effects of disinformation and hate speech, the litigation initiated in the CJEU challenging the €120 fine could be a useful step in using reason (rather than shouting) to clarify what is permissible and strike a reasonable balance between the competing interests.