Chapter 4|Supervision, Investigation, Enforcement and Monitoring of VLOPs and VLOSEs|📖 9 min read
1. The Commission shall publish the decisions it adopts pursuant to Article 70(1), Article 71(1) and Articles 73 to 76. Such publication shall state the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, including any penalties imposed.
2. Such publication shall have regard to the rights and legitimate interests of the provider of the very large online platform or of the very large online search engine concerned, any other person referred to in Article 67(1) and any third parties in the protection of their confidential information.
Understanding This Article
Article 80 establishes mandatory transparency requirements for Commission enforcement decisions under the DSA, requiring the Commission to publish decisions adopted under Articles 70(1) (interim measures), 71(1) (binding commitments), 73 (non-compliance), 74 (fines), 75 (enhanced supervision), and 76 (periodic penalty payments). Published decisions must state the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, including any penalties imposed. This publication requirement serves multiple important functions: it creates public accountability for Commission enforcement actions, deters other platforms from similar violations through visible consequences, informs users and stakeholders about platform compliance issues, and promotes transparency in how the DSA is interpreted and enforced.
The publication requirement balances transparency with legitimate confidentiality interests. While the Commission must publish enforcement decisions, publication must "have regard to the rights and legitimate interests of the provider of the very large online platform or of the very large online search engine concerned, any other person referred to in Article 67(1) and any third parties in the protection of their confidential information." This means the Commission must redact confidential business information, trade secrets, and other sensitive information from published decisions. The published version provides sufficient information for public understanding of the violation, penalty, and reasoning while protecting legitimate confidentiality interests.
Confidential information protected from publication typically includes: (1) Detailed technical specifications of platform systems that could reveal trade secrets; (2) Specific financial data beyond what is necessary to understand penalty calculations; (3) Information about business strategies, partnerships, or commercial relationships; (4) Personal data of individuals; (5) Third-party confidential information submitted during investigations; (6) Proprietary algorithms or code; (7) Security vulnerabilities. The Commission makes case-by-case determinations about what information must be redacted, typically allowing platforms to propose redactions subject to Commission approval. Disputes about redactions may be resolved through negotiations or, if necessary, judicial review.
The legal basis for publication reflects EU principles of transparency and open government. Enforcement decisions significantly affect platforms, users, and digital markets, creating legitimate public interest in understanding Commission actions. Publication enables democratic accountability by allowing European Parliament, Member States, civil society, and the public to assess whether the Commission is enforcing the DSA effectively and fairly. It also enables affected parties - including users, competitors, and researchers - to understand platform compliance obligations and enforcement priorities.
Publication timing and process typically follow a structured sequence. First, the Commission adopts the enforcement decision. Second, the Commission prepares a public version with proposed redactions, often consulting the affected platform about confidentiality protection. Third, if the platform objects to publication of certain information, the Commission considers whether the objections are justified by legitimate confidentiality interests. Fourth, the Commission publishes the decision, typically on the Commission's Digital Services Act enforcement webpage. Fifth, published decisions remain publicly available indefinitely, creating a public record of DSA enforcement. This process ensures both transparency and confidentiality protection.
Published DSA enforcement decisions serve as crucial precedents for interpreting DSA provisions. While Commission decisions are not formally binding precedent like CJEU judgments, they provide authoritative guidance on how the Commission interprets substantive DSA obligations, what conduct constitutes violations, what evidence suffices to establish non-compliance, how penalties are calculated, and what remedial measures the Commission considers appropriate. Platforms, regulators, and legal practitioners analyze published decisions to understand enforcement expectations and compliance requirements. The accumulation of published decisions over time creates an interpretive framework for the DSA's application.
The relationship between Article 80 publication and judicial review is important. Published decisions inform potential judicial challenges, as platforms and interested parties can assess whether Commission findings, reasoning, and penalties appear legally sound. Publication also enables third parties with legitimate interests to potentially intervene in judicial proceedings or file their own challenges to Commission decisions. Conversely, if judicial review results in annulment or modification of Commission decisions, those judicial outcomes are also published, providing additional public information about DSA enforcement and CJEU interpretation of DSA provisions.
Article 80's publication requirement differs from other DSA transparency provisions. Article 15 requires platforms to publish transparency reports about content moderation. Article 24 requires platforms to provide transparency about online advertising. Article 42 requires VLOPs and VLOSEs to publish risk assessment reports. These provisions address transparency of platform actions. Article 80 addresses transparency of Commission enforcement actions. Together, these provisions create a comprehensive transparency framework where both platform conduct and regulatory enforcement are subject to public scrutiny, promoting accountability throughout the digital services ecosystem.
The DSA's transparency framework, including Article 80, represents a significant evolution in EU digital regulation. Previous frameworks like the E-Commerce Directive lacked comparable enforcement transparency mechanisms. The DSA's robust publication requirements reflect lessons from other regulatory domains, particularly competition law, where publication of Commission decisions has proven essential for regulatory effectiveness, stakeholder engagement, and legal development. By making DSA enforcement transparent, Article 80 helps ensure the regulation achieves its goals of safer, more accountable digital services.
Key Points
Requires Commission to publish enforcement decisions including party names, main content, and penalties, creating public accountability for DSA enforcement
Publication must balance transparency with protection of confidential business information, trade secrets, and third-party sensitive data through redactions
Published decisions appear on Commission's DSA enforcement webpage and remain publicly available indefinitely as enforcement precedents
Serves multiple functions: public accountability, deterrence through visible consequences, stakeholder information, and transparency in DSA interpretation
Platforms should proactively negotiate redactions with Commission to protect legitimate confidential information while enabling public understanding
Published decisions create precedential guidance on DSA interpretation, violation standards, evidence requirements, and penalty calculations
Requires platforms to develop communications strategies managing reputational implications of public enforcement disclosure
Third parties including civil society, researchers, competitors, and users gain access to enforcement information enabling broader accountability
Practical Application
For platforms facing Commission enforcement actions, understanding Article 80's publication requirements is essential for managing reputational and business implications. When the Commission adopts enforcement decisions, those decisions will become public, potentially affecting: (1) User trust and platform reputation; (2) Investor and shareholder perceptions; (3) Business partner and advertiser relationships; (4) Competitor strategies; (5) Regulatory scrutiny in other jurisdictions; (6) Media coverage and public debate. Platforms should develop comprehensive communications strategies for managing publication of enforcement decisions, rather than being surprised by public disclosure.
Protecting confidential business information during publication requires proactive engagement with the Commission. When enforcement decisions are imminent, platforms should: (1) Review draft decisions to identify confidential information; (2) Prepare detailed redaction proposals with specific justifications for why each item is confidential; (3) Propose alternative formulations that convey necessary information without disclosing confidential details; (4) Negotiate with the Commission about appropriate redactions; (5) Escalate disputes about confidentiality protection if necessary. The Commission typically accommodates legitimate confidentiality interests, but platforms must clearly articulate why specific information should be protected and propose workable alternatives.
Communications planning should begin before enforcement decisions are adopted, not after publication. Platforms should prepare: (1) Internal communications explaining the situation to employees; (2) External communications for users, advertisers, partners, and other stakeholders; (3) Investor relations materials addressing financial and business implications; (4) Media strategies for managing press coverage; (5) Government relations approaches for addressing regulatory concerns in other jurisdictions; (6) Legal messaging about potential appeals or compliance actions. Having communications plans ready enables rapid, coordinated responses when decisions are published, minimizing confusion and reputational damage.
Learning from published enforcement decisions affecting other platforms provides valuable compliance intelligence. Platforms should systematically monitor Commission publication of DSA enforcement decisions, analyzing: (1) What conduct the Commission found violated which DSA provisions; (2) What evidence the Commission relied on; (3) How the Commission calculated penalties; (4) What remedial measures the Commission ordered; (5) How the platform responded to allegations; (6) Whether the Commission accepted commitments or imposed sanctions. This monitoring enables platforms to identify enforcement priorities, refine compliance programs, and understand regulatory expectations based on actual enforcement outcomes.
Published decisions may create disclosure obligations under securities laws or contractual agreements. Platforms publicly traded in EU or US markets may need to disclose material enforcement actions to investors. Platforms with loan covenants or contractual obligations may need to notify lenders or partners about enforcement decisions. Platforms should work with securities counsel and contract specialists to determine what disclosures are required when Commission decisions are published, ensuring timely compliance with all disclosure obligations to avoid additional legal problems compounding the original enforcement action.
The precedential value of published decisions creates strategic considerations. If a published decision addresses novel DSA issues or establishes new interpretive positions, platforms may want to: (1) Challenge the decision through judicial review to prevent it from becoming accepted precedent; (2) Engage with the Commission through formal comments or position papers addressing the decision's implications; (3) Participate in industry dialogues about the decision's interpretation; (4) Adjust compliance programs based on the decision's guidance; (5) Advocate for legislative or regulatory clarifications if the decision reveals ambiguities in DSA provisions. Published decisions shape the regulatory landscape, and platforms should engage strategically with important decisions rather than merely accepting them passively.
For platforms subject to enhanced supervision under Article 75, publication of the initial non-compliance decision and subsequent enhanced supervision decisions creates ongoing public scrutiny. Platforms must manage extended public attention to their compliance efforts, demonstrating visible progress toward remediation. This may involve: (1) Publishing transparency reports about compliance improvements; (2) Engaging with stakeholders about remedial measures; (3) Demonstrating leadership in addressing systemic risks; (4) Participating in industry initiatives related to the compliance issues. Effective management of public perception during enhanced supervision can help restore trust and credibility despite the initial violation.
Third parties, including civil society organizations, researchers, competitors, and users, gain valuable information from published decisions. Platforms should anticipate that published decisions will be analyzed by: (1) Advocacy groups who may use decisions to pressure for greater enforcement or regulation; (2) Researchers studying DSA implementation and effectiveness; (3) Competitors who may use decisions to inform their own strategies or to criticize the platform; (4) Users who may lose trust or seek alternatives; (5) Other regulators who may initiate their own investigations based on Commission findings. Understanding how different stakeholders will interpret and use published decisions enables more effective communications and stakeholder engagement.
From a compliance perspective, Article 80's transparency requirement creates additional incentives for robust DSA compliance. The reputational damage from public disclosure of violations, penalties, and non-compliance findings can exceed the direct financial cost of penalties. Platform leadership should understand that DSA violations will not remain internal regulatory matters but will become public knowledge, potentially affecting brand value, user trust, and business relationships. This reputational dimension reinforces the business case for investing in comprehensive compliance programs that prevent violations rather than addressing enforcement actions after they occur.
Legal counsel should archive published Commission decisions systematically, creating internal databases of DSA enforcement precedents. These databases enable: (1) Comparative analysis when platforms face similar allegations; (2) Benchmarking of penalty calculations; (3) Understanding Commission reasoning and interpretation; (4) Identifying trends in enforcement priorities; (5) Training compliance personnel about real-world enforcement examples; (6) Supporting advocacy for consistent enforcement. Over time, the accumulation of published decisions creates a body of DSA enforcement knowledge that becomes an essential resource for compliance management, defense strategy, and regulatory engagement.