1. Recipients of the service and any body, organisation or association mandated to exercise the rights conferred by this Regulation on their behalf shall have the right to lodge a complaint against providers of intermediary services alleging an infringement of this Regulation with the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State where the recipient of the service is located or established.
2. The Digital Services Coordinator with which the complaint is lodged shall assess it and, where appropriate, transmit it to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment in accordance with Article 56(3), accompanied, where considered appropriate, by an opinion on that complaint. Where the complaint falls under the responsibility of another competent authority in its Member State, the Digital Services Coordinator with which the complaint is lodged shall transmit it to that authority.
3. During these proceedings, both parties shall have the right to be heard and receive appropriate information about the status of the complaint, in accordance with national law.
Understanding This Article
Article 53 establishes a fundamental right for users to complain directly to regulatory authorities about DSA violations by intermediary service providers, creating direct access to public enforcement mechanisms beyond platform-level remedies. This provision fills a critical gap in digital services accountability: while Article 20 requires platforms maintain internal complaint systems for content moderation decisions, those mechanisms lack independence and may fail when platforms systematically violate DSA obligations or refuse to remedy harms. Article 53 empowers users to escalate concerns to Digital Services Coordinators who possess Article 51 investigation and enforcement powers. The provision's significance extends beyond individual complaints—Article 86 representative organizations can file on behalf of affected users, and Article 90's amendment to the Representative Actions Directive enables collective redress for consumer harms. Article 53 thus anchors a multi-layered enforcement ecosystem: internal platform complaints (Article 20), out-of-court dispute settlement (Article 21), regulatory complaints (Article 53), judicial remedies (Articles 54-55), and collective actions (Articles 86, 90).
Who Can Complain (Paragraph 1): Article 53 grants complaint rights to: (1) Recipients of the service - any individual or entity using intermediary services including: consumers using e-commerce platforms, users posting on social media, businesses advertising on platforms, website operators using hosting services, app developers distributing through app stores, journalists publishing on platforms, researchers accessing platform data. 'Recipient' is broadly defined in Article 3(h) as 'any natural or legal person who uses an intermediary service, in particular for the purposes of seeking information or making it accessible'—encompasses virtually anyone interacting with platforms. (2) Representative bodies, organisations or associations - entities 'mandated to exercise the rights conferred by this Regulation on their behalf' meaning: consumer protection organizations representing affected users (e.g., BEUC, national consumer associations), digital rights organizations (EDRi, Access Now, civil liberties groups), trade associations representing business users, qualified entities under Representative Actions Directive (Directive 2020/1828). Article 86 specifies requirements for representative organizations: operate on not-for-profit basis, properly constituted under Member State law, statutory objectives include legitimate interest in DSA compliance. Organizations meeting these criteria can file Article 53 complaints on behalf of individuals or groups.
Representative complaint advantages: (1) Expertise - specialized organizations understand DSA better than individual users, can identify systemic violations individual users might not recognize, articulate legal arguments more effectively. (2) Resources - organizations have staff, funding, legal counsel enabling comprehensive complaints individual users cannot afford. (3) Scale - organizations aggregating multiple similar complaints demonstrate patterns suggesting systematic violations rather than isolated incidents. (4) Public interest - representative complaints can address harms affecting broad populations even where individual harms too small to justify individual complaints (e.g., dark patterns affecting millions but causing minor individual harm). (5) Protection - organizations can complain without individuals facing retaliation risks (account suspensions, reduced visibility, other platform sanctions potentially discouraging individual complaints).
What Can Be Complained About (Paragraph 1): Complaints must allege 'an infringement of this Regulation'—violations of any DSA provision: (1) Chapter I violations - incorrect scope application, definitional disputes. (2) Chapter II violations - liability exemption misuse (providers claiming 'mere conduit' when exercising editorial control, platforms failing Article 6 actual knowledge/notice-and-action requirements, Article 7-8 violations of no general monitoring principle). (3) Chapter III violations - most common complaint subjects: Article 11 missing contact points or terms, Article 15 inadequate transparency reporting, Article 16 deficient notice-and-action mechanisms (ignored illegal content reports, unjustified removal refusals, lack of user notifications), Articles 19-28 platform violations (Article 20 internal complaint system failures, Article 22 trusted flagger program issues, Article 24-26 advertising/recommender transparency, Article 28 minor protection failures), Articles 29-32 marketplace violations (Article 30 trader verification failures, Article 31 compliance by design issues), Articles 34-43 VLOP/VLOSE violations (Article 34 risk assessments, Article 35 mitigation measures, Article 37 audit failures, Article 40 researcher data access denials, Article 42 advertising repositories). (4) Chapter IV violations - enforcement/cooperation failures by DSCs or Commission (though complaints about authorities themselves might go through different channels).
Complaints must be specific—vague allegations insufficient. Effective complaints identify: concrete DSA provision(s) allegedly violated, specific conduct or omission constituting violation, evidence supporting allegation (screenshots, documentation, communications), impact/harm caused by violation, timeframe of violation. DSCs need sufficient detail to assess complaints and potentially investigate. Unlike Article 20 internal complaints (typically about specific content decisions), Article 53 complaints often address systematic DSA non-compliance: platform-wide policy violations, procedural failures affecting many users, technical system deficiencies, recurring patterns of violations.
Where to Complain - Jurisdiction (Paragraph 1): 'Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State where the recipient of the service is located or established'—users complain to their own country's DSC, not necessarily the DSC where provider is established. Rationale: (1) Accessibility - users can complain in their language, to regulators in their jurisdiction, without navigating foreign legal systems. (2) Local harm - DSA violations often have localized impacts (country-specific illegal content, language-specific moderation failures, regional discrimination); local DSCs understand context. (3) Multi-state enforcement - Article 56(2) allows any Member State's DSC to act regarding violations affecting their territory; Article 53 complaints provide evidence triggering such action. Example: German user experiencing Article 16 notice-and-action violations by Irish-established platform files complaint with BNetzA (German DSC). BNetzA assesses and may: handle directly under Article 56(2) (violations affecting Germany), transmit to Irish DSC as primary authority (paragraph 2), coordinate joint action under Article 60.
Complaint Assessment and Transmission (Paragraph 2): Upon receiving complaint, DSC 'shall assess it'—evaluation determining: (1) Prima facie DSA violation - does complaint plausibly allege violation with sufficient specificity? (2) Jurisdiction - does violation relate to provider under Article 56 competence? (3) Materiality - is alleged violation significant enough to warrant regulatory action or minor technical issue? (4) Evidence sufficiency - does complaint provide adequate basis for investigation? Based on assessment, DSC may: (1) Transmit to DSC of establishment (paragraph 2 first sentence) - 'where appropriate, transmit it to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment in accordance with Article 56(3), accompanied, where considered appropriate, by an opinion.' Article 56(3) designates DSC of provider's establishment as primary authority for cross-border matters. Receiving DSC forwards complaint to establishment DSC with optional opinion on merit, severity, recommended action. Establishment DSC then investigates using Article 51 powers. (2) Transmit to other competent authority (paragraph 2 second sentence) - 'Where the complaint falls under the responsibility of another competent authority in its Member State, the Digital Services Coordinator with which the complaint is lodged shall transmit it to that authority.' In Member States with multiple competent authorities (France: ARCOM, CNIL, DGCCRF), DSC coordinates routing complaints to authority with subject-matter competence (data protection complaints to DPA, consumer protection to consumer authority, content regulation to media regulator). (3) Handle directly - receiving DSC may investigate directly under Article 56(2) if violations particularly affect their territory and action needed regardless of establishment location. (4) Decline/dismiss - if complaint frivolous, insufficiently specific, alleges no DSA violation, or outside DSC competence, DSC may decline action with explanation to complainant.
Transmission procedures ensure complaints reach appropriate authorities while avoiding bureaucratic ping-pong: 'shall assess...and, where appropriate, transmit' requires affirmative DSC action (can't ignore complaints), but 'where appropriate' grants discretion avoiding automatic forwarding of frivolous complaints. 'Accompanied, where considered appropriate, by an opinion' enables receiving DSC to provide valuable context: assessment of violation severity, observations on evidence sufficiency, legal analysis of DSA interpretation, recommended prioritization or actions. Establishment DSCs benefit from this input even if not binding. Cross-border complaint coordination is core Article 53 function. Platform users scattered across EU can all complain to their local DSCs; those DSCs coordinate ensuring establishment DSC receives comprehensive picture of multinational violations rather than fragmented reports.
Procedural Rights (Paragraph 3): 'Both parties shall have the right to be heard and receive appropriate information about the status of the complaint, in accordance with national law.' Ensures fair proceedings and transparency for: (1) Complainants - rights to: be heard regarding their complaint (submit written/oral observations, provide additional evidence, respond to provider's defenses), receive status updates (acknowledgment of receipt, notification of transmission to other authorities, progress reports on investigation, ultimate decision and reasoning), appeal/challenge if complaint dismissed (judicial review if DSC declines action unjustifiably). (2) Providers - rights to: be notified of complaints against them, be heard before adverse decisions (submit defenses, provide evidence, explain conduct, propose remedies), receive decisions with reasoning, appeal decisions (judicial review of DSC findings and enforcement actions). 'In accordance with national law' means Member States implement specific procedural rules within fundamental Charter and EU law requirements: Article 41 Charter (right to good administration), Article 47 Charter (effective judicial remedy and fair trial), general principles of EU administrative law (rights of defense, proportionality, legal certainty).
National procedural implementations vary: Some require written complaints with specific elements (identity, facts, alleged violations, relief sought), establish timelines for DSC responses (30-90 days for initial assessment), mandate status updates at intervals or milestones, specify appeal procedures and deadlines. Procedures balance thoroughness with timeliness: sufficiently robust to protect rights but efficient enough to address violations promptly.
Practical Application
Individual User Complaint Example - Article 16 Violation: Marie, a French user, reports child sexual abuse material (CSAM) to major social media platform using Article 16 notice mechanism. Platform acknowledges notice but takes no action after 3 weeks—clear Article 16(4) violation (manifestly illegal content like CSAM must be acted upon expeditiously). Marie exhausts Article 20 internal complaint system; platform responds notice doesn't meet their standards. Marie files Article 53 complaint with ARCOM (French DSC):
(1) Complaint contents: Identity and contact information, description of CSAM reported (without reproducing illegal content), date/method of Article 16 notice submission, platform's non-response constituting violation, Article 20 internal complaint and result, evidence (notice submission confirmation, platform responses, timestamps), requested relief (immediate removal, investigation of systematic Article 16 failures). (2) ARCOM assessment: Reviews complaint, determines prima facie Article 16 violation (CSAM clearly manifestly illegal requiring expeditious action), platform's primary establishment is Ireland (Meta). (3) Transmission: ARCOM transmits complaint to Irish DSC (Coimisiún na Meán) under Article 56(3) with opinion: violation appears serious (CSAM endangers children), evidence sufficient for investigation, recommends priority handling and broader investigation of platform's CSAM moderation. (4) Irish DSC action: Opens Article 51 investigation, requests information from platform about CSAM moderation procedures, issues Article 51(1)(a) information request for: statistics on CSAM notices and responses, moderation policies and training materials, explanation for specific non-action on Marie's notice. Platform responds: acknowledges inadvertent error in Marie's case (moderator misapplied policy), CSAM removed immediately upon investigation, broader procedures compliant. (5) Irish DSC decision: Finds isolated Article 16 violation (failure to act on manifestly illegal CSAM notice), imposes €50,000 administrative fine under Article 52 (modest given single incident but still significant for child protection violation), issues warning regarding future CSAM moderation, requires quarterly reporting on CSAM handling for 12 months. (6) Notification: Marie receives notification from ARCOM with Irish DSC decision summary. Platform notified of fine and reporting requirements.
This example illustrates Article 53's power: individual user escalated platform failure to regulatory authority triggering investigation and enforcement impossible through platform mechanisms alone. While Marie's individual harm (delayed CSAM removal) was remedied, regulatory action ensured accountability and future compliance.
Representative Organization Complaint - Systematic Article 24 Violations: European consumer organization (BEUC) identifies pattern: multiple e-commerce platforms using dark patterns violating Article 24 (interface design manipulating users). Platforms use: pre-checked boxes adding services users didn't request, hidden unsubscribe buttons, confusing cancellation flows, manipulative language pressuring purchases. Individual consumers rarely complain (individual harms small—unwanted services costing €5-20), but millions affected. BEUC files Article 53 complaints in multiple Member States:
(1) Complaint basis: BEUC qualified under Article 86 (not-for-profit, EU-level consumer organization, legitimate interest in DSA compliance) and Representative Actions Directive. Complaint documents: 15 specific dark pattern examples across 5 major e-commerce platforms, user testimony from 200+ affected consumers, analysis showing millions exposed, expert opinion confirming Article 24 violations (interfaces designed to deceive/manipulate), legal analysis of DSA Article 24 requirements. (2) Multi-jurisdiction filing: BEUC files complaints with: German BNetzA (platforms A, B established in Germany), Dutch ACM (platform C established in Netherlands), Irish DSC (platforms D, E established in Ireland), also files with national consumer authorities in 10 Member States where harms particularly severe. (3) DSC coordination: BNetzA, ACM, and Irish DSC coordinate under Article 60 joint investigation procedures: share BEUC complaint materials, conduct coordinated Article 51 information requests avoiding duplication, share evidence and findings, coordinate enforcement timing and penalties. (4) Platform responses: Platforms initially deny violations, argue interface choices are design preferences not manipulation. DSCs unconvinced; user testimony and expert analysis demonstrate manipulative intent. Platforms offer Article 51(2)(a) commitments: remove pre-checked boxes, improve unsubscribe visibility, simplify cancellation flows, implement independent dark pattern audits, provide transparency reporting on interface design changes, maintain for 3 years. (5) Enforcement: DSCs accept commitments as binding decisions, but also impose fines for past violations: Platform A (€10M - 0.2% turnover), Platform B (€15M - 0.25% turnover), Platform C (€8M - 0.15% turnover), Platform D (€12M - 0.2% turnover), Platform E (€5M - smaller platform, 0.3% turnover but lower absolute amount). Total enforcement: €50M in fines, binding design improvements affecting hundreds of millions of users.
BEUC's Article 53 complaints, impossible for individual consumers to pursue effectively, triggered coordinated enforcement remedying systematic violations and deterring future dark patterns industry-wide. Representative complaints amplify individual voices.
Business User Complaint - Article 30 Marketplace Violations: Small business selling handmade goods on major e-commerce marketplace discovers platform systematically fails Article 30 trader verification: fraudulent sellers using stolen identities operate unchecked, undermining legitimate businesses and deceiving consumers. Business files Article 53 complaint with national DSC:
(1) Complaint: Business identifies 50+ fraudulent sellers on platform (selling counterfeits, taking payments without delivery), platform's verification systems inadequate per Article 30, harms: reputational damage to marketplace, consumer fraud, unfair competition against compliant traders, evidence: fraudulent seller profiles, consumer complaints about scams, documentation of platform's inadequate verification. (2) DSC investigation: Article 51 information requests reveal: platform relies on automated identity checks easily circumvented, manual verification for <5% of traders, no verification of EU company registration databases (Article 30 requires platforms make 'best efforts' to verify), inadequate monitoring of trader behavior patterns suggesting fraud. (3) Enforcement: DSC finds Article 30 violations—best efforts standard not met when obvious verification gaps exist. Orders: implementation of EU company database checks, increased manual verification (minimum 30% of new traders), fraud detection algorithms flagging suspicious patterns, quarterly reporting on verification improvements, €20M fine for systematic non-compliance affecting thousands of traders and millions of consumers.
Business user complaint on behalf of broader trader community and consumers triggered marketplace integrity improvements benefiting ecosystem beyond individual complainant.
Civil Society Complaint - Article 35 VLOP Risk Mitigation: Digital rights organization identifies VLOP's algorithmic recommender system amplifying election misinformation violating Article 35(1)(a) risk mitigation obligations. Organization files Article 53 complaint:
(1) Complaint: VLOP's risk assessment identified electoral misinformation as Article 35 systemic risk, but mitigation measures inadequate: misinformation content still widely amplified, corrections receive fraction of original misinformation's reach, algorithmic engagement optimization prioritizes sensational false claims over accurate information, evidence: academic research on algorithm amplification, examples of viral misinformation, analysis of VLOP's Article 42 transparency reporting showing inadequate enforcement. (2) Complexity: Complaint involves Article 35's principles-based obligations (proportionate risk mitigation), Article 34 risk assessment adequacy, Article 37 audit findings (were risks properly assessed?). DSC must balance: VLOP's discretion in choosing mitigation measures vs. effectiveness obligations, freedom of expression (not all misinformation illegal) vs. systemic harm reduction, technical complexity of algorithmic content distribution. (3) DSC approach: Requests Article 37 independent auditor's opinion on complaint allegations, conducts Article 51(1) investigation with algorithmic experts, coordinates with other Member State DSCs (electoral risks affect multiple countries). (4) Findings: VLOP's risk assessment adequate (correctly identified electoral misinformation risks), but mitigation measures insufficient—algorithm continues amplifying engagement-maximizing content regardless of accuracy. (5) Enforcement: Orders enhanced mitigation: reduce recommender system amplification of unverified election claims, improve fact-checked content visibility, implement friction for sharing flagged election content, quarterly reporting on misinformation amplification metrics, €200M fine (0.5% turnover) for inadequate mitigation of severe systemic risk.
Civil society complaint addressing complex algorithmic governance issues individual users couldn't effectively raise, triggering meaningful platform governance improvements for democratic processes.
Complaint Coordination Example - Multi-Country Pattern: Same VLOP violates Article 27 recommender transparency across multiple Member States: users in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland receive algorithmically curated content without adequate Article 27 explanations of ranking parameters. User complaints filed in each country with local DSCs:
(1) Independent complaints: 5 DSCs receive complaints alleging same Article 27 violations affecting their respective users. (2) Initial coordination: DSCs communicate via Article 57 mutual assistance mechanisms, recognize pattern, decide coordinated approach under Article 60 joint investigation. (3) Lead DSC: DSCs designate Irish DSC (establishment authority) as investigation lead; others contribute as needed. (4) Coordinated investigation: Irish DSC conducts primary Article 51 investigation, German/French/Spanish/Italian/Polish DSCs provide: evidence from their complaints, country-specific examples of violations, expert analysis of local language implementations, user testimony. (5) Unified enforcement: Irish DSC issues single enforcement decision addressing EU-wide Article 27 violations: finding systematic non-compliance across all implementations, €150M fine reflecting multi-country impact, cessation order requiring compliant recommender explanations in all EU languages within 90 days, €5M daily periodic penalties if non-compliant. (6) Complainant notification: All DSCs inform their respective complainants of enforcement outcome and platform compliance.
Coordination transformed fragmented national complaints into comprehensive EU-wide enforcement addressing systematic multi-jurisdictional violations.
For Users - How to File Effective Article 53 Complaints: (1) Exhaust internal remedies first (usually): Article 53 doesn't require exhausting Article 20 internal complaints and Article 21 out-of-court settlement before filing, but DSCs may prioritize complaints where platform remedies failed, demonstrating good faith attempt to resolve before regulatory escalation. Exception: urgent matters threatening rights/safety or systematic violations unlikely to be remedied internally. (2) Identify your DSC: Locate Digital Services Coordinator in your Member State (Commission maintains public registry, most DSCs have websites with complaint forms). (3) Gather evidence: Document violation thoroughly—screenshots, communications, timestamps, Article 20 complaint records, relevant platform policies, any evidence supporting DSA violation allegation. (4) Specify DSA provisions: Identify specific DSA articles/provisions allegedly violated—complaint effectiveness increases with precise legal claims rather than vague grievances. (5) Describe harm: Explain impact—personal harm, broader affected users, public interest concerns. DSCs prioritize complaints showing significant impact. (6) Submit complaint: Most DSCs offer online complaint forms, email addresses, or postal mail; include all relevant information and evidence. (7) Monitor status: Exercise Article 53(3) right to information—request updates if DSC doesn't proactively communicate, understand procedures and expected timelines. (8) Consider representative organization: If individual complaint unlikely to trigger action (small individual harm, limited evidence, complex issues), contact consumer/digital rights organizations potentially able to file more effective representative complaints or aggregate similar complaints.
For Representative Organizations: (1) Build Article 86 qualification: Ensure organization meets requirements (not-for-profit, proper constitution, legitimate interest in statutory objectives), document qualification for DSC verification. (2) Aggregate evidence: Collect user complaints, testimony, and evidence demonstrating patterns rather than isolated incidents. (3) Expert analysis: Engage legal experts for DSA interpretation, technical experts for platform/algorithm analysis, academic researchers for harm documentation. (4) Multi-jurisdiction strategy: If violations affect multiple countries, consider coordinated filing with multiple DSCs to demonstrate scale and encourage Article 60 coordination. (5) Media and advocacy: Public complaints combined with advocacy and media attention pressure platforms and DSCs for serious treatment. (6) Monitor and report: Track complaint outcomes, publish transparency reports on DSA enforcement, hold DSCs accountable for thorough investigation. (7) Coordinate with other organizations: Align strategies with other civil society groups filing similar complaints, share resources and expertise.
For DSCs - Complaint Handling Best Practices: (1) Accessible systems: Provide clear online complaint portals, multilingual support, user-friendly forms, guidance on evidence requirements. (2) Acknowledgment and tracking: Immediately acknowledge complaint receipt, provide reference numbers for tracking, establish systems for status updates. (3) Preliminary assessment: Conduct rapid initial review determining jurisdiction, subject matter competence, prima facie validity, prioritization based on severity/affected users. (4) Coordination: Proactively communicate with DSCs of establishment and other affected Member States per Articles 56-60, share complaints revealing multi-country patterns. (5) Complainant engagement: Exercise Article 53(3) obligations providing appropriate status information, timely notifications of transmission to other authorities, ultimate decision communication, respect for rights to be heard. (6) Provider fairness: Ensure providers notified of complaints, opportunity to respond, decisions based on evidence and fair process. (7) Transparency: Publish statistical reporting on complaints received (overall numbers, categories, outcomes) per Recital 122; consider publishing anonymized decisions as precedents. (8) Resource adequacy: Allocate sufficient staff for complaint processing given Article 53 complaints may be complex requiring investigation, avoid backlogs undermining effectiveness. (9) Priority handling: Process representative organization complaints with priority per Article 86, recognize their broader impact and organizational capacity justifying expedited review.