European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has robustly rejected claims that the Digital Services Act (DSA) is being used to interfere in Member States' elections by influencing online political content. In a written response to a parliamentary question filed on 11 February 2026 by MEPs Marieke Ehlers, Mieke Andriese, Rachel Blom, Ton Diepeveen, Sebastian Kruis, and Auke Zijlstra (PfE), von der Leyen outlined the DSA's clear boundaries: the Commission does not prescribe what content is illegal—that rests on national and other EU laws—and lacks authority to compel content removal. The DSA mandates platforms to address systemic risks related to fundamental rights and electoral processes but refrains from regulating political speech directly. Platforms must publish annual risk assessments, and enforcement decisions are publicly accessible, bolstering democratic scrutiny.
This clarification follows a series of recent statements by Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen defending the DSA's approach. On 17 April 2026, Virkkunen detailed DSA staffing and budget figures, rejecting allegations of creating a “permanent censorship and surveillance apparatus,” and reaffirmed the DSA's content moderation framework amid AI racism concerns. Earlier, on 16 April, she outlined the Commission's communication channels with very large online platforms (VLOPs) and safeguards against excessive moderation. On 15 April, Virkkunen defended EU digital policy against US allegations of internet censorship and championed legal accountability for AI-driven racism. The same day, she proposed an EU-wide coordination mechanism for age verification to protect minors online.
The Commission's position also aligns with broader institutional debates. On 15 April, EEAS officials clashed with MEPs over whether the EU's strategy against Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI) should prioritize defensive resilience or offensive deterrence. That same day, MEPs debated Hungary's 2026 election integrity, highlighting AI-driven smear tactics and media domination. Von der Leyen's response reiterates the Commission's commitment to a predictable online environment that safeguards fundamental rights, as she stated on 17 April, emphasizing that content moderation decisions rest with platforms, which must provide transparency and redress avenues.
The Commission emphasizes that its regulatory oversight balances protecting fundamental freedoms—like freedom of expression enshrined in the EU Charter—with addressing risks to elections through risk mitigation strategies by online service providers. Regulatory dialogue with platforms aims at compliance and accountability, not political influence. Judicial oversight remains a bulwark for enforcement decisions. For online platforms, these rules introduce systematic transparency and potential judicial review, increasing operational complexity. Political actors and civil society benefit from enhanced visibility into platform policies, aiding democratic accountability. Citizens gain from mechanisms protecting pluralism and free speech but may face confusion around complex regulatory processes. The Commission's answer signals its intent to uphold the current DSA framework while advocating transparency and judicial checks, sustaining its supervisory role without encroaching on political discourse directly.
← Atlas › News › Digital & Communication