Elon Musk responded to the European Commission fining his social media platform, X, £120 million ($140 million) for violating its Digital Services Act (DSA). The regulator found X to be in violation of the EU’s digital regulations after a two-year investigation.  US officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance, were […]Elon Musk responded to the European Commission fining his social media platform, X, £120 million ($140 million) for violating its Digital Services Act (DSA). The regulator found X to be in violation of the EU’s digital regulations after a two-year investigation.  US officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance, were […]

Musk takes on EU as regulators defy Washington in U.S. Big Tech sweep

2025/12/09 08:13

Elon Musk responded to the European Commission fining his social media platform, X, £120 million ($140 million) for violating its Digital Services Act (DSA). The regulator found X to be in violation of the EU’s digital regulations after a two-year investigation. 

US officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance, were also critical of the EU, claiming that the decision is an attack on American companies.

Why did the EU fine Elon Musk’s company? 

Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, has been fined £120 million ($140 million) for breaching the European Union’s digital regulations. The Digital Services Act was adopted in 2022 to regulate online platforms, but this is the first time the EU has issued a non-compliance decision under its rules.

The fine covers three main violations confirmed during the two-year investigation, including the deceptive design of X’s blue checkmark system, the lack of transparency in its advertising repository, and failure to provide access to public data for researchers. 

Before Musk acquired X in 2022, the platform was known as Twitter, and blue checkmarks were largely reserved for celebrities, politicians and influential accounts. 

After the purchase, the site started issuing badges to anyone willing to pay $8 per month. European regulators argue this system makes it difficult for users to judge the authenticity of accounts and exposes them to scams and impersonation fraud.

The fine breaks down into £45 million for the blue checkmark issue, £35 million for the advertising repository problems, and £40 million for blocking researchers from accessing public data. 

X now has 60 days to inform the Commission how it will fix the blue checkmark issues and 90 days to submit plans for fixing its advertising repository and researcher access problems. Failure to comply could lead to additional periodic penalty payments.

How are U.S. officials reacting to the fine?

The U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, called the fine an attack on American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments. Vice President JD Vance accused the Commission of seeking to fine X for not engaging in censorship.

Musk initially simply reacted with a post on X saying that the decision was “bullshit.” By Saturday, he had a much bigger reaction, stating that the EU should be abolished and sovereignty should be returned to individual countries so that their governments can better represent the people. 

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recently stated that the EU must revise its digital regulations to secure a deal for reducing its steel and aluminum tariffs. 

The Trump administration has consistently argued that the EU unfairly targets U.S. technology companies with severe financial penalties and burdensome regulations. The U.S. Ambassador to the EU, Andrew Puzder, said the fine, which was placed not just on X but on Musk himself, is an example of regulatory overreach targeting American innovation.

European officials have denied the accusations so far. A Commission spokesman, Thomas Regnier, stated at a press conference that the EU is not targeting anyone based on their country of origin. Regnier also noted that Europe’s preference had not been to fine X. He explained that when companies engage constructively with the Commission, they prefer to settle cases, using TikTok as an example. 

Meta was recently found in breach of EU competition rules over its pay or consent system earlier this year and was fined £200 million. The company will now give users a choice between choosing to share all their data for fully personalized advertising or opting to share less personal data for an experience with more limited personalized advertising. 

Get up to $30,050 in trading rewards when you join Bybit today

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Crypto whale loses $6M to sneaky phishing scheme targeting staked Ethereum

Crypto whale loses $6M to sneaky phishing scheme targeting staked Ethereum

The post Crypto whale loses $6M to sneaky phishing scheme targeting staked Ethereum appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. A crypto whale lost more than $6 million in staked Ethereum (stETH) and Aave-wrapped Bitcoin (aEthWBTC) after approving malicious signatures in a phishing scheme on Sept. 18, according to blockchain security firm Scam Sniffer. According to the firm, the attackers disguised their move as a routine wallet confirmation through “Permit” signatures, which tricked the victim into authorizing fund transfers without triggering obvious red flags. Yu Xian, founder of blockchain security company SlowMist, noted that the victim did not recognize the danger because the transaction required no gas fees. He wrote: “From the victim’s perspective, he just clicked a few times to confirm the wallet’s pop-up signature requests, didn’t spend a single penny of gas, and $6.28 million was gone.” How Permit exploits work Permit approvals were originally designed to simplify token transfers. Instead of submitting an on-chain approval and paying fees, a user can sign an off-chain message authorizing a spender. That efficiency, however, has created a new attack surface for malicious players. Once a user signs such a permit, attackers can combine two functions—Permit and TransferFrom—to drain assets directly. Because the authorization takes place off-chain, wallet dashboards show no unusual activity until the funds move. As a result, the assets are gone when the approval executes on-chain, and tokens are redirected to the attacker’s wallet. This loophole has made permit exploits increasingly attractive for malicious actors, who can siphon millions without needing complex hacks or high-cost gas wars. Phishing losses The latest theft highlights a wider trend of escalating phishing campaigns. Scam Sniffer reported that in August alone, attackers stole $12.17 million from more than 15,200 victims. That figure represented a 72% jump in losses compared with July. According to the firm, the most significant share of August’s damages came from three large accounts that accounted for nearly half…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/19 02:31