Elon Musk Declares War on the EU After X Hit With Major DSA Penalty

It appears the Trump Administration’s long-running rhetorical standoff with European officials is finally reaching a boiling point. Late last week, the EU Commission hit Elon Musk’s X with a €120 million ($140 million) fine, citing violations of the platform’s DSA transparency obligations. To rewind for context: in 2023, former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton publicly condemned X’s revamped verification system — the paid checkmark model that allows virtually anyone to purchase a blue badge. The previous Twitter-era system, for all its flaws, was intended to curb misinformation by granting verification only to public figures, major brands, and government entities. Under Musk’s paid model, the line between authenticity and convenience has blurred to the point of collapse. Breton argued that this shift creates confusion and therefore breaches the DSA’s transparency requirements. One could counter that Twitter’s original process suffered from arbitrary criteria, or that Musk has now rendered the blue tick so meaningless that the badge no longer signals credibility at all. But the core of the EU’s initial concern rested on the charge of deception. Combined with broader transparency shortcomings, this led the EU to open a full investigation. Musk, unsurprisingly, embraced the confrontation. He publicly welcomed a “very public battle in court,” insisting that European citizens deserved to “know the truth.” Now, he may indeed get that spectacle. The EU Commission has imposed a significant fine, accusing X of violating DSA rules by deploying deceptive design practices. The Commission’s formal notice states: “This deception exposes users to scams, including impersonation frauds, as well as other forms of manipulation by malicious actors. While the DSA does not mandate user verification, it clearly prohibits online platforms from falsely claiming that users have been verified, when no such verification took place.” This criticism targets X Premium directly: users willing to pay for a badge need only verify a phone number — hardly the rigorous process the platform implies. Beyond the checkmark issue, X is also being penalized for failing to maintain a searchable ad library and falling short of its obligations to provide researchers with access to public platform data. X must now pay the $140 million fine and will have 90 days to present a detailed plan addressing each of the Commission’s concerns. A reasonable observer might assume X would comply and adjust its systems to satisfy European regulators. But Elon Musk has chosen a very different path. His response has been incendiary, likening the EU Commission to the Nazi regime, endorsing calls for the U.S. to abandon NATO, and demanding the dissolution of the EU altogether. In other words, another calm and understated reaction from the world’s richest man. Musk has also secured support from senior U.S. officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, with Rubio characterizing the EU’s action as “an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments.” So the response from Washington has been equally restrained — which is to say, not at all. Members of the Trump Administration have long criticized European regulatory frameworks, arguing they unfairly burden U.S. companies. Administration officials have repeatedly signaled that they are prepared to defend American businesses more aggressively if provoked. Earlier this year, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr declared the DSA “incompatible with America’s free speech tradition,” while Vance condemned parallel EU restrictions on AI development. President Trump has floated the idea of imposing tariffs on European imports in retaliation for penalties levied against U.S. tech giants. Yet, until now, the administration has not taken formal retaliatory action. Could this be the case that changes that posture? Ironically, such a shift could benefit Meta, one of Musk’s chief rivals, which has spent years repositioning itself to gain favor with the Trump Administration. Meta has absorbed more than $1 billion annually in EU fines, fighting each one aggressively. Its overtures toward Trump’s team have been partly aimed at securing U.S. backing in these disputes. But so far, no retaliation has materialized. With Elon — a close Republican ally — now under fire, the calculus may shift. The latest X fine has clearly caught the attention of Republican lawmakers, and there is growing expectation that Trump will respond in some form to counter the EU ruling. What shape could that response take? Reports earlier this year suggested the State Department was evaluating options ranging from visa restrictions to tariffs, trade limits, and other economic measures. But Trump could, if he wanted, act far more dramatically — for instance, by pulling the U.S. out of NATO or drastically reducing America’s support for Europe. That scenario remains hypothetical, and the administration has not signaled anything close to such an extreme move. But the rhetoric is intensifying, and retaliation of some kind seems increasingly likely. Stepping back, this episode highlights the extraordinary geopolitical weight that social media platforms now carry. The U.S.–China relationship is entangled in the fate of TikTok. The U.S.–EU relationship may fray over X and Facebook. It sounds absurd, but global diplomacy is increasingly shaped by disputes over apps. Not long ago, these platforms were dismissed as trivial entertainment. Today, they sit at the center of international power struggles. Expect this conflict to escalate before the year is out. 📢 If you're interested in Facebook Ads Account, don't hesitate to connect with us!🔹 https://linktr.ee/Adshinepro💬 We're always ready to assist you!

While Elon Musk’s X braces for a showdown over its latest Digital Services Act penalty, Meta appears to have secured something resembling a regulatory victory in Europe. The EU Commission has agreed to Meta’s revised proposal to reduce its use of personal data in ad targeting — an alternative to the company’s pay-or-consent model — bringing Meta closer to compliance with the bloc’s strict data-use rules. It’s the latest turn in a lengthy back-and-forth between Meta and European regulators. In 2023, Meta introduced its first ad-free subscription tier for EU residents. Priced at €9.99 per month, the plan allowed users to access Facebook and Instagram without any data tracking whatsoever. That approach enabled Meta to meet regulatory requirements by offering a real opt-out for data collection while still preserving a revenue stream. But privacy advocates criticized the strategy, arguing that it undermined the principles of the GDPR and its broader guardrails against “data capitalism.” Since then, Meta has repeatedly adjusted the offer, even slashing subscription fees, hoping to satisfy EU officials and gain support for its alternative framework. And now, it appears Meta may have found the formula that regulators can accept: a new middle-ground option limiting the amount of personal data used for ads. According to the EU Commission: “The European Commission acknowledges Meta’s undertaking to offer users in the EU an alternative choice of Facebook and Instagram services that would show them less personalized ads, to comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA). This is the first time that such a choice is offered on Meta’s social networks. Meta will give users the effective choice between: consenting to share all their data and seeing fully personalized advertising, and opting to share less personal data for an experience with more limited personalized advertising. Meta will present these new options to users in the EU in January 2026.” In practice, this means the EU will no longer force the binary decision of either accepting extensive ad targeting or paying to avoid it. Meta will give users a third path — keep ads, but limit how much data is used to personalize them. Users will still see ads; they’ll just be less relevant. But it aligns more closely with the DSA’s overarching goals. Unsurprisingly, Meta has not been shy about its irritation with the process. The company has accused EU authorities of regulatory “overreach,” insisting that such restrictions will inevitably create “a worse experience for users and businesses.” Meta’s core argument is straightforward: if users want to opt out of tracking while still using Meta’s platforms, the company must have another way to monetize them. From a free-market standpoint, that’s a defensible position. Any rule forcing Meta to provide services without compensation essentially treats the platform as a public utility — which it is not. So Meta maintains that it is entitled to request payment, whether in data or dollars. EU officials have pushed back in an attempt to reinforce the value of personal data, which has become the currency of the digital age and has arguably been undervalued by consumers for years. Both perspectives have merit — but the result is likely to be what Meta has been warning about all along: EU users receiving a less personalized, less useful ad experience. That trade-off probably isn’t what most people want, yet it’s the direct by-product of regulators seeking to redefine data rights. This broader friction is one reason Meta has been urging the U.S. government to support American tech companies facing mounting European penalties. Washington has expressed sympathy for Meta’s position and for other U.S. platforms caught in the regulatory crossfire. But the White House has stopped short of deploying any retaliatory measures. For now. With Elon Musk — a close ally of President Trump — now squarely in the crosshairs of EU enforcement, that dynamic could shift quickly. Such a move could give Meta a significant advantage, pressuring the EU to soften at least some of its regulatory ambitions. Until now, European officials have stood firm despite hints of U.S. retaliation, and Washington has not outlined any formal response. But the standoff could escalate as the EU continues to roll out rules with direct consequences for American tech giants. 📢 If you're interested in Facebook Ads Account, don't hesitate to connect with us!🔹 https://linktr.ee/Adshinepro💬 We're always ready to assist you!

Meta’s complicated, on-again/off-again relationship with news publishers appears to be swinging back toward cooperation, with the company unveiling a fresh round of licensing deals that will allow several major outlets to supply real-time content for Meta’s AI chatbot. After years of insisting it didn’t need news content — and repeatedly refusing to pay for it — Meta suddenly seems to need publishers again. As Meta explains: “We’re beginning to offer a wider variety of real-time content on Meta AI — from global, breaking news to entertainment, lifestyle stories, and more. When you ask Meta AI news-related questions, you’ll now receive information and links that draw from more diverse content sources to help you discover timely and relevant content tailored to your interests.” This mirrors a capability that X has boasted about with its Grok chatbot, which can tap into X’s live feed of posts to deliver real-time answers — something other AI systems can’t match without access to a similar data pipeline. OpenAI is in the most challenging position here. Without a social platform or proprietary news stream, ChatGPT can’t reliably report on unfolding events. The company is now trying to build its own social network, while also negotiating with publishers in hopes of filling that gap. And as publishers increasingly close off their archives, recognizing the enormous value of real-time data for AI training, licensing deals have become a new and lucrative revenue stream. Meta’s latest move is simply another step toward tapping into that growing marketplace. “These integrations will also facilitate easier access to information by linking out to articles, allowing you to visit these partners’ websites for more details while providing value to partners, enabling them to reach new audiences.” In other words, Meta wants to rebuild bridges with publishers — despite having spent years dismantling them, rejecting payment demands, and scrapping previous agreements without hesitation. It’s a familiar cycle, one Meta has never quite managed to get right. So what’s different this time? The truth is that Meta’s attitude toward news has always been purely transactional. When news content serves Meta’s interests, it embraces publishers. The moment priorities shift, those same partners are dropped with little warning — a pattern starkly illustrated by Facebook’s pivot to video years ago, which pushed publishers to hire entire production teams, only for Meta to abandon the strategy and leave those organizations scrambling. The company has repeatedly opened the door to publisher reach, then slammed it shut, forcing them toward paid distribution. It has launched dedicated news tabs, then quietly dismantled them. The message publishers have learned, loudly and consistently, is that Facebook is not a platform you can build a dependable business on. And yet, Meta’s business continues to grow regardless — proof that the company makes decisions solely based on what strengthens its own position, not its partners’. That’s likely why this new slate of publishing partners — including CNN, Fox News, Le Monde Group, The Washington Examiner, USA TODAY and others — are approaching with caution. The value is clear: more up-to-the-minute information for Meta AI and more visibility for participating outlets. But everyone knows Meta may change course at any moment. For Meta, the benefits are obvious: steady access to real-time news and a fresh stream of training data for its AI systems. That could also encourage more publishers to consider licensing as an income stream, as AI companies race to secure credible, up-to-date content. But the lingering question remains: how long before Meta decides that it can simply rely on Threads data — or some other internal source — to fill the same role? How long before the company deems these deals unnecessary? It’s a notable development, but no one in the publishing world is betting on long-term stability. With Meta, history has taught them better. 📢 If you're interested in Facebook Ads Account, don't hesitate to connect with us!🔹 https://linktr.ee/Adshinepro💬 We're always ready to assist you!