In a major test of Europes tough new tech rulebook, the European Commission has hit X, the company formerly known as Twitter, with a 120 million euro fine, roughly 140 million dollars. The penalty follows a formal investigation opened in 2024 and targets the platforms paid blue checkmark system and its lacklustre ad transparency tools. 
Brussels regulators argue that the blue tick now signals something it no longer reliably provides, real verification of an account holders identity, while at the same time being sold as a subscription perk. For a platform that still plays a central role in politics, news and culture, the ruling is a clear warning that cosmetic design choices can count as deceptive practices when they mislead users at scale.
From legacy verification to pay to play status
For years, the blue checkmark on Twitter was a status symbol tied to notability and authenticity. Journalists, public officials, brands and other high profile figures could apply, undergo a review, and finally receive the badge that told ordinary users that this account was likely genuine. Under Elon Musks ownership, X replaced that legacy programme with a paid model: almost anyone can obtain the same blue icon by signing up to a subscription bundle. In the eyes of the Commission, the interface still strongly suggests that a blue tick equals verified identity, even though the underlying process no longer meaningfully checks who is behind the handle. Many long time users complain that they miss the older legacy badges that at least tried to separate public institutions from impersonators and trolls.
That apparent mismatch between what a design element implies and what it actually delivers is at the heart of this case under the Digital Services Act, the European Unions flagship online regulation. The DSA orders large platforms to avoid so called dark patterns, design tricks that push people towards choices they might not otherwise make. When a blue tick is marketed as an upgrade that boosts visibility, unlocks monetisation and now even gates features such as live streaming, it becomes more than a simple styling choice. Critics say the change has turned the badge into a pay to play tool that encourages engagement bait, as some subscribers churn out outrage threads hoping ad revenue will cover the monthly fee. Regulators argue that when such incentives are layered on top of a misleading symbol of trust, the overall package crosses the line into deceptive design.
Ad transparency that fails the DSA test
The fine does not stop at the checkmark. Investigators also examined Xs ad repository, the searchable database that should allow citizens, researchers and journalists to see which ads ran on the platform, what they said, and who paid for them. Under the DSA, these libraries are a key safeguard against scam networks, covert influence operations and fake political campaigns. According to the Commission, Xs implementation falls far short. The ad tools are slow and difficult to use, sometimes introducing long delays that make systematic research almost impossible. Crucial data points, including the content and topic of the ad and the legal entity financing it, are frequently missing or incomplete, undercutting the very transparency the law is meant to guarantee.
Researcher access, user backlash and what happens next
A third pillar of the decision focuses on access to public data for independent researchers. The DSA gives vetted academics and civil society experts a right to obtain certain categories of platform data so they can study systemic risks such as disinformation, online abuse or the targeting of minors. X, meanwhile, has tightened its terms of service to prohibit scraping and severely restricted its programming interfaces unless organisations pay or go through opaque application procedures. The Commission concludes that these contractual and technical barriers go beyond what is necessary to protect the service and effectively block legitimate research efforts inside the European Union. In practice, that means fewer outside eyes on how the recommendation algorithms work and how quickly harmful campaigns are detected and removed.
Beyond the legalese, the ruling captures a deeper frustration that many users express about the direction of the platform. Subscription tiers now bundle status, visibility boosts and basic functionality in ways that blur the line between safety, identity and pure monetisation. Some users joke that you pay a monthly fee for the privilege of posting ragebait replies in the hope of earning a few cents back, while others balk at needing a premium tier just to host a live stream. For people who never wanted to buy clout in the first place, the combination of paid verification, weaker moderation and more aggressive advertising has made alternatives from rival companies, including those owned by Meta, look relatively more attractive despite their own flaws.
X has sixty working days to explain exactly how it plans to fix the issues around the blue checkmark and ninety days to overhaul its ad repository and researcher access policies. The company will submit an action plan that first goes to the Boards of Digital Services for an opinion and then to the Commission for a final decision, after which Brussels will set a concrete implementation deadline. If X drags its feet or proposes superficial tweaks, further penalties, including additional fines tied to global turnover, remain on the table. Other social networks are watching closely, because this is one of the clearest signals yet that European regulators are prepared to enforce the Digital Services Act not only against illegal content, but also against misleading interface choices and obstructive data policies. For users, the outcome will determine whether the blue tick once again means something close to real verification or stays a badge that mostly reflects who is willing to pay.