DSA Transparency

Legal Framework

Transparency reporting under the Digital Services Act is governed primarily by Article 15 and Article 42. Article 15 imposes annual transparency reporting obligations on all providers of intermediary services, including hosting services and online platforms. These reports must cover several mandated categories: the number of orders submitted by Member State authorities to act against illegal content, the number of notices submitted through the notice-and-action mechanisms, the outcomes of those notices, and information about the provider's content moderation practices, including the use of automated tools.

Article 42 extends and deepens these obligations specifically for very large online platforms (VLOPs) and very large online search engines (VLOSEs). These entities must publish transparency reports at least every six months and include additional metrics such as the number of active recipients of the service, the number of staff dedicated to content moderation, and detailed breakdowns of automated versus human-driven moderation decisions. The rationale is proportionate: larger platforms with systemic impact face heightened disclosure duties to enable meaningful regulatory oversight and public accountability.

The doctrinal principle of proportionality is central here — transparency obligations scale with the risk profile and societal footprint of the service provider, reflecting a tiered regulatory architecture rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Key Developments

The European Commission has actively enforced DSA transparency obligations since the Act's full applicability in February 2024. The Commission opened formal proceedings against several VLOPs, including X (formerly Twitter), for suspected failures in transparency reporting, particularly regarding the completeness and accuracy of content moderation disclosures. The Commission's preliminary view indicated that X's advertising repository and transparency reports did not satisfy Article 42 requirements.

The Digital Services Coordinators at the national level have also begun scrutinizing smaller platforms' compliance with Article 15. Early enforcement signals indicate that regulators expect transparency reports to be machine-readable, easily accessible on the provider's website, and structured to allow meaningful comparison across reporting periods. Reports that are buried in obscure website sections or lack methodological explanation have drawn regulatory criticism.

Practical Guidance

• Publish annually at minimum, or semi-annually if designated as a VLOP/VLOSE. The reporting cadence is determined by your platform's designation status under Article 33. Track designation decisions closely, as they trigger the heightened Article 42 regime.

• Structure reports around the specific categories enumerated in Article 15(1). These include authority-issued orders, user notices, content moderation outcomes, and automated tooling. Omitting any category renders the report non-compliant, regardless of overall quality.

• Ensure methodological transparency. Reports must explain how metrics are calculated, what definitions are used for "illegal content," and how automated versus human moderation decisions are distinguished. Vague or inconsistent methodology invites enforcement risk.

• Make reports easily discoverable and machine-readable. Place them in a dedicated, prominently linked section of your website. Regulators have signaled that accessibility is a compliance threshold, not a best practice.

• Align transparency reporting with internal audit cycles. Content moderation data must be collected systematically throughout the reporting period. Retroactive data reconstruction is both unreliable and likely to produce the kinds of inconsistencies that trigger regulatory scrutiny.