In a development marking the latest clash between Elon Musk and the European Union, the European Commission has issued a damning preliminary report indicating that Musk’s social media platform, X, formerly known as Twitter, is in violation of the Digital Services Act (DSA).

This report, based on extensive investigations, accuses X of multiple breaches related to dark patterns, advertising transparency, and restricting data access for researchers.

“Today, the Commission has informed X of its preliminary view that it is in breach of the Digital Services Act (DSA) in areas linked to dark patterns, advertising transparency, and data access for researchers,” the report stated.

Key Findings of Non-Compliance

The Commission’s preliminary findings are rooted in an in-depth investigation that included analyzing internal company documents, expert interviews, and collaboration with national Digital Services Coordinators. The findings outline three primary areas of non-compliance:

Deceptive Design of Verified Accounts: X’s operation of its “verified accounts” with the “Blue checkmark” is said to mislead users.

The report noted, “Since anyone can subscribe to obtain such a ‘verified’ status, it negatively affects users’ ability to make free and informed decisions about the authenticity of the accounts and the content they interact with. There is evidence of motivated malicious actors abusing the ‘verified account’ to deceive users.”

Lack of Advertising Transparency: The platform is accused of failing to provide a reliable and searchable advertisement repository.

The Commission highlighted that “X does not comply with the required transparency on advertising, as it does not provide a searchable and reliable advertisement repository, but instead put in place design features and access barriers that make the repository unfit for its transparency purpose towards users.”

Obstruction of Data Access for Researchers: X is alleged to have prohibited eligible researchers from accessing its public data independently.

The report states, “X fails to provide access to its public data to researchers in line with the conditions set out in the DSA. In particular, X prohibits eligible researchers from independently accessing its public data, such as by scraping, as stated in its terms of service. In addition, X’s process to grant eligible researchers access to its application programming interface (API) appears to dissuade researchers from carrying out their research projects or leave them with no other choice than to pay disproportionately high fees.”

EU Commission’s Stance

Margrethe Vestager, Executive Vice-President for Europe Fit for the Digital Age, emphasized the importance of transparency under the DSA.

“Today we issue for the first time preliminary findings under the Digital Services Act. In our view, X does not comply with the DSA in key transparency areas, by using dark patterns and thus misleading users, by failing to provide an adequate ad repository, and by blocking access to data for researchers. The DSA has transparency at its very core, and we are determined to ensure that all platforms, including X, comply with EU legislation,” Vestager stated.

Elon Musk’s Response

X owner, Elon Musk, has been vocal about his determination to promote free speech and has repeatedly accused governments across the US and Europe of censorship.

He responded fiercely to the Commission’s accusations saying, “The European Commission offered ? an illegal secret deal: if we quietly censored speech without telling anyone, they would not fine us. The other platforms accepted that deal. ? did not.”

He further reacted to the Commission’s stance by expressing a willingness to challenge the findings in court.

“We look forward to a very public battle in court, so that the people of Europe can know the truth,” Musk responded.

He also endorsed a claim by an X user suggesting that the EU’s allegation of blocking data access for researchers was a veiled attempt to enforce censorship, saying, “This has been their plan the whole time — to use the DSA to force X to restaff the censorship squad fired when Elon took over,” to which Musk replied, “exactly.”

Potential Consequences

If the preliminary views of the Commission are confirmed, the ramifications for X could be severe. The Commission would then adopt a non-compliance decision, finding X in breach of Articles 25, 39, and 40(12) of the DSA.

This could lead to substantial fines, up to 6% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the provider, and mandatory corrective measures. Additionally, a non-compliance decision might trigger an enhanced supervision period to ensure compliance and impose periodic penalty payments to compel adherence.

Thierry Breton, Commissioner for Internal Market, underscored the potential penalties and required changes, stating, “Back in the day, BlueChecks used to mean trustworthy sources of information. Now with X, our preliminary view is that they deceive users and infringe the DSA. We also consider that X’s ads repository and conditions for data access by researchers are not in line with the DSA transparency requirements. X has now the right of defence — but if our view is confirmed we will impose fines and require significant changes.”

The Backstory

X was designated as a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP) on April 25, 2023, under the EU’s Digital Services Act, following its declaration of reaching over 45 million monthly active users in the EU. On December 18, 2023, the Commission opened formal proceedings to assess potential breaches of the DSA by X, particularly in areas related to illegal content dissemination, information manipulation, dark patterns, advertising transparency, and data access for researchers.

In parallel with this case, the Commission has opened formal proceedings against other major platforms, including TikTok, AliExpress, and Meta, highlighting a broader crackdown on non-compliance with the DSA.

The clash between Musk’s X and the EU Commission is expected to be a landmark case in the enforcement of the DSA, with significant implications for the future operations of online platforms in Europe.

A newly released report by the National Bureau of Statistics, in collaboration with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, has revealed staggering figures of corruption within the country.

The report indicates that an estimated N721 billion, equivalent to $1.26 billion, was paid in bribes to public officials in 2023.

The comprehensive study, titled “Corruption in Nigeria: Patterns and Trends,” provides a detailed breakdown of the prevalence and scope of bribery, noting that the average cash bribe increased to N8,284, up from N5,754 in 2019.

Judges topped the list, receiving an average bribe of N31,000, followed by customs and immigration services at N17,800, and members of the armed forces at N16,600. The police, notorious for their involvement in corrupt practices, were found to demand bribes from 9% of individuals who had contact with them.

“The largest share of Nigerian citizens had contact with health care professionals and public utilities officers, at 30 percent and 24 percent respectively. Police officers came third, with a contact rate of 20 percent,” the report said.

This revelation has far-reaching implications for Nigeria’s economy. High levels of corruption undermine investor confidence, who see the business environment as unpredictable and risky. Anti-graft campaigners note that potential investors, particularly those from foreign countries, will likely be deterred by the pervasive culture of bribery and the lack of transparency in government dealings.

The report also highlights that 46% of public officials offered bribes to secure employment, a figure which has increased by 1.5 times since 2019. Moreover, six out of ten successful candidates in the public sector admitted to using nepotism, bribery, or both to secure their positions.

“In 2023, around 56 percent of Nigerians had at least one contact with a public official in the 12 months prior to the survey,” the report said. “This represents a reduction in the contact rate since 2019 (63 per cent), which was observed across most types of public officials and across zones.”

This nepotistic culture, analysts note, worsens the problem as it leads to the appointment of unqualified individuals, reducing the overall efficiency and effectiveness of public institutions.

The findings also note the disparity in corruption levels between urban and rural areas, with urban residents having higher contact rates with public officials (61%) compared to their rural counterparts (52%). The most frequent interactions were with healthcare professionals and public utility officers, further highlighting the widespread nature of corruption across different sectors.

According to the findings, 4% of those who interacted with nurses and doctors were asked for bribes, 3% of individuals dealing with teachers or lecturers, and 6% of those in contact with public utility officials faced similar demands.

Additionally, 4% of those interacting with Federal Road Safety Corps officials and 2% of those dealing with vehicle inspection officials reported being asked for bribes. The report also noted that highly educated individuals are more likely to pay bribes compared to those with no formal education.

This report comes at a critical time when Nigeria seeks to position itself as a favorable destination for FDI. However, concerned citizens have lamented that the high levels of corruption pose a significant barrier, as investors prioritize stable and transparent environments for their investments. It is believed that the country’s international reputation for corruption leads to increased scrutiny and hesitation from foreign investors, ultimately impacting economic growth and development.

To counter these negative effects, the Nigerian government has been advised to intensify its anti-corruption efforts. Strengthening institutional frameworks, ensuring the enforcement of anti-corruption laws, and promoting transparency and accountability in public service are crucial steps in rebuilding investor confidence.

Without such measures, economic experts have warned, the financial prospects of attracting substantial FDI will remain bleak, further stalling Nigeria’s path to sustainable development.