The Compliance Charade: How Big Tech Is Neutering the Digital Services Act

The European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA) was designed to pull back the curtain on the algorithmic black holes of Big Tech. By granting vetted researchers access to platform data to study systemic risks—ranging from illegal content to threats to fundamental rights—the law promised a new era of accountability. However, two years into its implementation, the reality is far grimmer. As reported by WIRED and Ars Technica, Meta, X, and TikTok are treating these legal mandates as optional suggestions, employing a sophisticated strategy of obfuscation to keep the public in the dark.

***

**Opinion:** *The current state of DSA implementation is a masterclass in corporate stalling. By creating impossible security requirements and paywalling essential tools, these platforms are not cooperating; they are actively disincentivizing the very scrutiny the law requires. Without aggressive enforcement, the DSA is a paper tiger.*

***

The cost of this stonewalling is not theoretical; it is geopolitical. In Romania, the 2024 presidential election saw a surge for Calin Georgescu, a candidate who espoused anti-Semitic tropes and hard-line immigration views. Declassified Romanian intelligence later indicated that Georgescu benefited from preferential treatment on TikTok and that Russia allegedly coordinated the campaign.

Adriana Iamnitchi, chair of computational social sciences at Maastricht University, attempted to investigate how pro-Georgescu content was monetized via livestreaming and hidden influencer marketing. On October 28, 2025, her team applied for API access under the DSA. TikTok denied the request, claiming the researchers failed to meet security requirements or explain their commercial interests. Two months afterward, TikTok disclosed it had acted against more than 27,000 bogus accounts linked to a coordinated influence operation boosting Georgescu and his Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR). Iamnitchi notes that had her team been granted access, they might have identified who profited from the disinformation.

This is not an isolated incident of administrative friction; it is a systemic pattern. Duncan Allen of Democracy Reporting International (DRI) highlights how platforms are systematically dismantling public access. Meta shut down CrowdTangle in favor of content libraries, while X has paywalled its API, forcing academics to pay hundreds of dollars monthly. Even when access is granted, TikTok caps daily requests, which Allen argues makes large-scale study impossible.

Furthermore, the platforms are weaponizing the application process. Iamnitchi said most platforms mandate that data be kept on infrastructure that cannot be breached—such as computers physically cut off from the internet—a resource the majority of universities lack. L. K. Seiling, coordinator of the DSA40 Collaboratory, notes that even approved data is often impossible for colleagues to reproduce, meaning a researcher’s work cannot be checked for errors—a safeguard Iamnitchi has called a basic requirement of science.

The numbers from the DSA40 Collaboratory, which tracked 46 applications, reveal a stark disparity in cooperation. While TikTok approved 11 of 13 tracked applications, X rejected 11 of 23. Seiling warns that the actual rejection rate is likely higher due to the reliance on voluntary reporting.

TikTok has defended its record, telling WIRED it has granted access to over 1,500 research teams and approved 130 EU applications in the latter half of last year. They maintain that their daily quota of 1,000 API requests—allowing for up to 100,000 video/comment records or 2 million follower records—is compliant with the DSA. But as the Romanian election proves, a controlled drip of data is not the same as transparency. It is a curated narrative designed to protect the giants from true accountability.