Meta’s Fact-Checking Rollback and the EU Digital Services Act

Executive Summary

Meta has ignited concern in Europe by removing third-party fact-checking from its platform in January 2025, just as a new U.S. administration under Donald Trump takes office. The move – replacing independent fact-checkers with a crowd-sourced “community notes” system – raises serious questions about Meta’s compliance with the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and the broader influence of American tech giants on Europe’s information space. This brief examines Meta’s decision and its implications:

• Meta’s January 2025 Policy Change: Mark Zuckerberg announced an end to Facebook’s use of independent fact-checkers, pivoting instead to user-generated “community notes” for flagging misinformation. He framed this as a push for free expression, even acknowledging it means the platform will “catch less bad stuff”. The timing, on the eve of Trump’s inauguration, suggests alignment with political pressures in Washington
• DSA Compliance Concerns: The EU’s DSA – fully in force as of 2024 – requires very large online platforms to assess and mitigate systemic risks like disinformation. Meta’s rollback of fact-checking appears to clash with these obligations, as EU law and its Codes of Practice explicitly call for cooperation with fact-checkers to curb false information. EU officials have already warned that Meta must conduct a risk assessment before withdrawing fact-checking in Europe.
• Wider Political Context: Meta’s policy shift comes amid a U.S. political climate hostile to content moderation. Trump and his allies have long accused platforms of “censorship” of conservatives. Critics blasted Meta’s move as pandering to Trump – “a full bending of the knee” to political pressure – while proponents in the U.S. applaud a return to “free speech” over “policing” content. This divergence sets the stage for transatlantic tensions over online speech rules.
• European Information Ecosystem at Stake: The decision underscores European vulnerabilities: key choices about the EU’s information ecosystem are made in Silicon Valley, often with limited accountability to EU institutions. European policymakers worry that without independent fact-checks, online misinformation could spread unchecked, potentially influencing EU public discourse and elections. European officials argue that freedom of expression “should not be confused with a right to virality” of false content, emphasizing that unmoderated virality can undermine democracy.
• Zuckerberg’s Defiance and EU Enforcement: Zuckerberg’s rhetoric signals a confrontational stance – he derided Europe’s new content rules as “laws industrialising censorship” and vowed to “work with President Trump” to push back on such restrictions globally. This perceived defiance will test the DSA’s enforcement. The European Commission can now leverage its new powers – from requiring rapid risk assessments to imposing hefty fines (up to 6% of global turnover) or even service bans for major violations – to ensure Meta toe the line. How Brussels responds will set a precedent for the primacy of EU law in the face of Silicon Valley’s gambit.

Background: Facebook’s January 2025 Decision to Drop Fact-Checking

On January 7, 2025, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg unveiled major changes to Facebook’s content moderation policies, most notably ending the platform’s partnerships with third-party fact-checking organizations. Henceforth, Facebook and its sister platforms (Instagram, Threads) will no longer use independent fact-checkers to review and label false or misleading posts. Instead, Meta will roll out a new system of “Community Notes,” a crowd-sourced approach akin to the user-generated fact notes on Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter). In a five-minute video titled “More Speech and Fewer Mistakes,” Zuckerberg argued that this shift will reduce what he views as overzealous “censorship” on the platform and restore a greater flow of free expression

What the January 2025 Policy Change Entails: Zuckerberg’s announcement and accompanying Meta blog post detailed several changes:

• Eliminating Third-Party Fact-Checkers: “Starting in the US, we are ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to a Community Notes model,” Meta declared. In other words, posts will no longer be vetted by professional fact-checking partners; instead, volunteer users will attach notes providing additional context or corrections to questionable content.
• “More Speech” – Relaxed Content Moderation: The company pledged to “allow more speech” by lifting certain content restrictions and focusing enforcement on only illegal or high-severity violations. Topics that were previously down-ranked or removed for being borderline (but part of mainstream discourse) may now remain up. This reflects Zuckerberg’s view that Facebook had become too heavy-handed in moderating borderline content, allegedly silencing legitimate debate.
• Reduced Penalization of Misinformation: As Community Notes phase in, Meta said it will stop demoting content flagged by fact-checkers and remove the warning interstitials that previously obscured posts labeled as false. Instead of a prominent “False Information – See Why” warning screen that users must click through, misleading posts will simply carry a lighter-touch label indicating additional context is available. This subtle change means users might more easily share or view dubious content without immediate friction.
• Personalized Political Content Feeds: Meta also indicated it will take a “more personalized” approach to political content: users who want to see more political posts will be able to do so. This suggests an algorithmic tweak to let politics-oriented users bypass prior measures that de-emphasized political news in feeds. While tangential to fact-checking, it aligns with the overall theme of loosening content curation controls.

Zuckerberg justified these moves by claiming that the fact-checking program had unintended consequences. He asserted that independent fact-checkers, despite their expertise, proved “biased” in selecting what to flag, allegedly censoring “legitimate political speech and debate” in the U.S. . In his view, a tool meant to inform users had morphed into a tool that too often “became a tool to censor”, generating frustration among users and allegations of partisanship  (Here's why Meta ended fact-checking, according to experts - ABC News). By offloading fact-checking to the community, Meta argues it can provide context without centrally deciding truth – effectively saying “we don’t want to be the arbiters of truth” .

It is no coincidence that this policy U-turn comes at a unique political moment. Zuckerberg’s announcement arrived just weeks before Donald Trump’s January 20, 2025 inauguration as U.S. President. After years of strained relations between Meta and Trump (including Facebook’s ban of Trump’s accounts after the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot), the company now appears to be making peace with the returning administration. In fact, the context of Trump’s victory was explicitly cited: Zuckerberg spoke of “recent elections” being a cultural turning point toward prioritizing speech again (Here's why Meta ended fact-checking, according to experts - ABC News). Internally, Meta executives were reportedly anxious about the incoming administration’s hostility to Silicon Valley’s content moderation policies (Meta, Facebook to drop fact-checkers: What does this mean for social media? | Social Media News | Al Jazeera). Right-wing lawmakers and commentators in the U.S. have long decried Facebook’s fact-checks and content removal as “censorship” of conservative voices, and Trump himself campaigned on promises to rein in big tech. By announcing an end to fact-checking, Meta effectively handed a win to those critics at a critical juncture.

Indeed, Zuckerberg has effectively acknowledged the trade-off being made. In his video remarks, after promising a more permissive platform, he conceded “we’re going to catch less bad stuff” under the new approach (Here's why Meta ended fact-checking, according to experts - ABC News). Fewer harmful posts (e.g. misinformation, hate speech) will be caught and removed, but, in Meta’s view, that is the price of reducing what he calls “mistakes” – cases where legitimate content was removed or down-ranked. This is a stark reversal from the company’s post-2016 stance, when it built up a robust content moderation apparatus to curb “fake news.” Now, as 2025 begins, Meta is pulling back many of those measures.

The reaction to Facebook’s fact-checking retreat has been polarized. Free-speech advocates and some U.S. conservatives applauded the move, arguing that Meta is right to err on the side of letting users speak openly. However, journalists, civil society groups, and many policymakers have expressed alarm. Could this usher in a new wave of viral misinformation? Misinformation researchers note that Facebook’s independent fact-checkers – including respected outlets like Reuters and AFP – played a significant role in debunking false claims (for instance, flagging hundreds of COVID-19 and election-related hoaxes in recent years). Without those filters, false narratives might now spread faster and wider before community notes (if any) catch up. In short, critics fear Facebook’s platform could regress to a “pre-2016” Wild West of disinformation.

Meta’s DSA Obligations: Disinformation, Systemic Risks, and Accountability

Facebook’s policy pivot not only has content implications – it also puts Meta on a potential collision course with European law, specifically the Digital Services Act (DSA). The DSA is the EU’s landmark legislation (effective as of 2024) that imposes heightened responsibilities on Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. At its core, the DSA seeks to secure a safer, more transparent online environment, holding platforms accountable for systemic risks to society. This includes requiring platforms to address the spread of illegal content, and crucially, to mitigate the dissemination of disinformation and manipulative content that can undermine democratic processes.

Several provisions and related instruments under the DSA are directly relevant to Meta’s fact-checking rollback:

• Systemic Risk Management: Under the DSA, VLOPs must assess and mitigate “systemic risks” on their services, which explicitly include the impact of disinformation, election manipulation, and other information disorders. Platforms are required to perform annual risk assessments and implement reasonable risk mitigation measures (Art. 34 DSA). In practice, this means Meta should be evaluating how misinformation spreads on Facebook/Instagram and taking steps to reduce foreseeable harms – steps that, up until now, have involved working with fact-checkers, algorithmic demotion of false content, warning labels, etc. By removing fact-checkers and easing content curbs, Meta could be seen as lowering its defenses against disinformation, potentially contravening the DSA’s risk mitigation requirement. Simply put, if misinformation proliferates more freely as a result of Meta’s policy change, the company may have a hard time demonstrating that it is satisfactorily managing that systemic risk.
  
  
• Codes of Practice on Disinformation: In addition to the binding rules of the DSA, the European Commission has championed a voluntary Code of Practice on Disinformation (now strengthened and intended to work in tandem with the DSA). Meta is a signatory. This Code, updated in 2022, explicitly requires major platforms to collaborate with fact-checkers and researchers to combat disinformation, including providing “fair financial contributions” to support fact-checkers’ work. It also calls for transparency and tools to inform users when they may be seeing false content. Meta’s sudden abandonment of third-party fact-checkers runs directly counter to the letter and spirit of this code. While the Code of Practice is technically voluntary, the DSA allows the Commission to potentially declare such codes as “Codes of Conduct” with regulatory weight. In any case, Meta’s move clearly reneges on promises it made to European regulators and civil society in the disinformation code – a point not lost on observers in Brussels.
  
  
• Obligation to Maintain Effective Mechanisms: The DSA doesn’t mandate how a platform must moderate content, but it does demand that whatever mechanisms are in place be effective in reducing harms. The question that EU regulators will now be asking is: Does replacing professional fact-checkers with a crowd-based system meet the bar of effectiveness? Meta’s argument is that community notes can provide a scalable, neutral way to add context to false claims. However, this approach is untested at Facebook’s scale (nearly 3 billion users worldwide). The experience on X/Twitter shows community notes can sometimes debunk falsehoods, but often misinformation spreads much faster than volunteers can consensus-tag it, misses most of the misinformation, is sometimes inaccurate, and can be gamed. EU officials will likely scrutinize whether Meta’s new measures are truly mitigating disinformation or merely giving it a longer leash. The early warning sign: Zuckerberg’s own admission that they will “catch less” bad content suggests an anticipated increase in missed falsehoods – which could be interpreted as knowingly tolerating higher systemic risk.
  
  
• Accountability and Reporting: The DSA also requires transparency from platforms about their content moderation policies and outcomes (including data on removed or labeled content, errors, etc.), and it empowers EU authorities to audit platforms’ risk assessments and compliance. Meta will be expected to document how the elimination of fact-checkers does not increase harm. If their internal data (or external research) later shows spikes in viral fake news, the European Commission could deem Meta out of compliance with DSA obligations to act responsibly. France’s Foreign Ministry pointedly noted that the DSA “holds platforms accountable for the content to which users are exposed,” emphasizing that protecting citizens from information manipulation is integral to the law. In other words, Europe has codified an expectation that platforms like Facebook must not simply let disinformation run rampant.
  
  

European regulators have been quick to respond. Within a day of Meta’s announcement, the European Commission’s spokesperson reminded Meta of its DSA duties: “We take note of Meta’s announcement... Under the DSA, before removing these policies, very large platforms will have to conduct a risk assessment and send it to the EU Commission,” the spokesperson warned. This implies that if Meta intends to extend the end of fact-checking to the EU, it must first formally evaluate the impact that could have on European users and inform Brussels. Notably, Meta has told reporters it has “no immediate plans” to scrap fact-checking in the EU, a nod to the reality that doing so without clearance would provoke a regulatory backlash. (Meta likely hopes to trial the new approach in the U.S. first and argue, if it wants to apply it in Europe later, that its risk mitigation is sufficient—an argument the EU is sure to challenge.)

From Europe’s perspective, Meta’s decision looks problematic. If the volume of misinformation on Facebook increases, it directly heightens the “systemic risk” of societal harm – exactly what the DSA was designed to prevent. European officials have already highlighted the stakes: Meta’s own partnership with fact-checkers was credited with “supporting the integrity of the European elections in 2024”. Those fact-checkers helped filter out fake narratives and foreign propaganda during a crucial electoral period. Abandoning such tools ahead of future European elections (like national votes or the 2029 European Parliament elections) could expose European democracies to greater interference. It’s a point the French government underscored, cautioning that unchecked virality of “inauthentic content” is not protected speech and should not be allowed to “destabilize” democracy.

Furthermore, Meta’s move undercuts the very notion of platform accountability the DSA enshrines. Instead of external accountability (to regulators, to independent fact-checkers or auditors), Meta is pivoting to a model of internal, user-driven oversight, which may be harder for outsiders to monitor. European regulators cannot easily hold “the crowd” accountable if misinformation slips through; they can only hold Meta accountable. That sets up a challenge: if Community Notes fails to catch a harmful falsehood that goes viral in Europe, will Meta accept blame and consequences? Or will it point fingers at an “independent” process? The DSA won’t likely entertain such excuses – the buck stops with the platform operator when it comes to compliance.

In summary, Meta’s fact-checking rollback raises red flags under the DSA on multiple fronts: risk mitigation, adherence to disinformation code commitments, and general platform accountability for content governance. It signals a potential breach of trust: Meta had collaborated with European authorities and fact-checkers for years to tackle disinfo (spending over $100 million on these efforts since 2016), and now it appears to be unilaterally stepping back. EU officials and lawmakers have openly called this a “major step back” for platform responsibility. 

The coming months will likely see intense scrutiny of Facebook and Instagram’s content trends in Europe, as regulators gather evidence to decide if Meta is violating the DSA’s requirements. If the data shows a surge in viral falsehoods or election manipulation attempts with weaker moderation, Meta could face formal investigations and enforcement under the DSA. The law provides for fines up to 6% of a company’s global annual turnover for non-compliance – a potentially multi-billion euro penalty in Meta’s case – and even the ultimate threat of service suspension in the EU for repeated serious infringements. Such measures have never been tested, but then, neither has Meta’s resolve to flout Europe’s new rules.

Wider Political Context: Meta, Trump, and Transatlantic Tensions

Facebook’s policy change cannot be viewed in isolation from the wider political winds that are blowing – especially the crosscurrents between Washington, D.C. and Brussels. The episode highlights how platform governance is increasingly entangled with geopolitics and partisan battles.

Meta’s Pivot Towards the Trump Narrative: Ever since Donald Trump’s first campaign and presidency, U.S. conservatives have accused social media companies of bias – claiming that Facebook, Twitter, and others systematically “censored” right-wing viewpoints under the guise of content moderation and fact-checking. These accusations reached a fever pitch when Trump was de-platformed in January 2021. Although Meta reinstated Trump’s Facebook account in early 2023, the relationship remained fraught. Now, with Trump back in power, Meta appears keen to get back into the good graces of the Republican establishment. Zuckerberg’s “fewer mistakes” manifesto reads almost as an olive branch to the right. He echoed talking points long heard on conservative airwaves – that fact-checkers supposedly have a left-leaning agenda and that Facebook’s moderation has stifled legitimate debate on topics like immigration or gender policy. The inclusion of examples like those in Meta’s communications was telling, as they are culture war issues prominent in Trump-era politics.

Critics argue that Meta’s policy reversal was politically motivated, aimed at appeasing Trump and his base. Notably, Nina Jankowicz, a former U.S. disinformation official, blasted Zuckerberg’s move as “a full bending of the knee” to Trump. This colorful phrasing underscores a perception that Meta is capitulating to political pressure rather than making an impartial policy choice. Likewise, Article 19, a freedom-of-expression NGO, noted the timing and content of Zuckerberg’s announcement “closely parrot talking points taken from conservative media in the US,” calling it “a blatant attempt to cater to specific political interests”. In other words, what might seem like a generic policy shift actually mirrors a particular partisan narrative – one that the Trump camp has been pushing.

From Meta’s perspective, aligning with the reigning power in Washington might be a cold business decision. The Trump administration is expected to scale back tech regulation on issues like misinformation or hate speech (having characterized those efforts as anti-conservative bias). There’s even speculation that U.S. authorities could pressure companies to drop certain moderation practices. By preemptively doing exactly that, Meta could be shielding itself from domestic regulatory reprisal or Congressional hearings. In fact, U.S. Republican leaders have already signaled approval: Representative Jim Jordan, a vocal critic of tech’s “censorship”, seemed to soften his stance on Meta after these changes, with observers noting that his once “tough treatment” of Zuckerberg has eased now that Meta has ended its U.S. fact-checking policies. This suggests Meta’s gambit is paying off in terms of U.S. political capital – a point not lost on EU policymakers watching from across the Atlantic.

However, this alignment with Trump’s preferences is sharpening transatlantic contradictions. Under the previous U.S. administration (Biden), while there were differences with the EU on tech policy, there was at least a shared concern about misinformation (e.g. cooperation on COVID-19 disinfo). The Trump administration’s return heralds a starkly different approach – one that may actively undermine or oppose Europe’s regulatory agenda on platform accountability. We are effectively seeing a clash of narratives: “Free Speech” vs “Sovereignty”. Meta finds itself in the middle, trying to please one side (the U.S. government) without completely alienating the other (the EU).

For Europe, the optics are troubling: a Californian tech giant appears to be aligning its policies with a U.S. political faction’s interests, even if that runs counter to European public interest or laws. This fuels an existing European critique that companies like Meta and X dictate the rules of online speech based on U.S. domestic dynamics, not on the needs of other societies. To many in Europe, it is jarring that a platform used daily by hundreds of millions of Europeans might be adjusting how it handles misinformation because American politicians don’t like how it moderated posts about U.S. elections or pandemics.

Transatlantic Regulatory Tension: The DSA itself has become something of a bogeyman in certain U.S. political circles. Almost immediately after the DSA’s implementation, American officials began portraying it as a foreign regulation that could impose “censorship” on U.S. tech companies and users. In early 2025, House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan sent letters demanding explanations from Brussels about how the DSA would be enforced on U.S. firms, accusing the EU of exporting a speech-policing regime. Elon Musk has openly sparred with EU regulators over DSA requirements, and Trump himself complained that EU fines on tech giants are a “tax” on American companies. Into this fray steps Mark Zuckerberg, who, according to Politico reporting, personally urged President-elect Trump to oppose EU online content rules and prevent European enforcement against U.S. platforms. This is a remarkable development: a CEO enlisting his home government to push back on another jurisdiction’s law. It underscores how the fact-checking issue is part of a larger struggle over who sets the norms for the global internet.

For EU policymakers, such moves can be seen as affronts to European digital sovereignty. The Trump administration’s posture suggests potential political backing for Meta if it resists EU mandates. One can envision scenarios where U.S. officials might even lodge diplomatic protests or threaten trade repercussions if they perceive the EU’s DSA enforcement as harming U.S. economic interests or constitutional values. (Already, American free-speech advocacy groups argue that global platforms might apply EU “censorship” globally, affecting Americans – an arguably exaggerated fear, but one that has traction in Washington discourse.)

In essence, the fact-checking rollback exemplifies how Europe and the U.S. are drifting apart on platform governance. Europe views robust moderation (including fact-checks and algorithmic tuning) as necessary to protect users’ freedom of information and democracy; the current U.S. leadership casts those same measures as suspect, preferring a laissez-faire or “let the people sort it out” philosophy. Meta, for its own strategic reasons, is now leaning toward the latter. This creates a fault line: decisions made in Silicon Valley (or Texas) for U.S. political reasons directly impact what information European users see, how they see it, and what safeguards are in place. When those decisions conflict with European norms or rules, it sets up a regulatory confrontation. As one European commentator framed it, “Will the EU fight for the truth on Facebook and Instagram?” – a question that captures the brewing battle between a Europe that wants platforms to uphold factual integrity, and a platform seemingly retreating from that role under American political influence.

For now, the situation is delicate. Meta has not yet turned off fact-checking in Europe – likely a tactical pause to avoid immediate EU wrath. But the “wider political context” suggests this pause may be temporary, or at least that Meta’s overall trajectory is to reduce moderation globally. Many observers suspect that once the U.S. transition is complete and any immediate dust settles, Meta will extend similar policies internationally, including in Europe, arguing for one consistent global approach. Fact-checkers themselves are bracing for this: the consensus in the fact-checking community is that Meta will “eliminate third-party factchecking in Europe, and worldwide, after trialing the new community notes system in the United States”. Zuckerberg’s own comments disparaging new laws (a likely reference to the DSA and similar regulations) and promising to collaborate with Trump to fight them, are a clear warning sign. It puts European policymakers on notice that the usual transatlantic comity on tech might be giving way to open resistance.

European Information Ecosystem: Geopolitical Implications of Silicon Valley’s Sway

The clash over fact-checking is about more than just one company’s policy – it illuminates a deeper issue: Europe’s information ecosystem is heavily shaped by American corporate actors, often with limited European oversight. This has long been a concern in EU policy circles, but Meta’s latest move makes it ever more concrete.

Consider that Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp (all Meta-owned) are among the most widely used information platforms in Europe. Decisions that affect how misinformation is handled on those platforms can influence public opinion, political outcomes, and even public health in European societies. Yet, those decisions are being made unilaterally by Meta’s leadership, largely influenced by business interests and, as argued above, U.S. political dynamics. This raises a fundamental question of digital sovereignty: can Europe ensure the integrity of its own information space if it is effectively outsourced to Silicon Valley’s whims?

Risk of Increased Misinformation in Europe: If Meta eventually withdraws fact-checking in Europe (or functionally scales it down by demoting its importance), European users could see a surge in unchecked false or misleading content on their feeds. Already, the European Commission has been worried about such risks. In late 2023 and 2024, EU institutions sounded alarms about platform compliance with voluntary anti-disinformation commitments – noting that “all of the major platforms appear to be falling far short” of their promises. The DSA’s advent was supposed to change that by compelling more action. Meta’s new stance, however, appears to be a step in the opposite direction, potentially leaving Europeans more exposed to things like electoral disinformation campaigns, conspiracy theories, and foreign state propaganda.

This is not a theoretical concern. Europe has seen the real-world impact of online falsehoods – from Russian disinformation efforts targeting elections and referendums, to COVID-19 anti-vaccine myths eroding public trust, to misinformation fueling migration fears. Facebook has often been a vector for these, but its partnership with fact-checkers in Europe (including organizations across France, Spain, Germany, Poland, the Balkans, etc.) has been one mitigating layer. Those fact-checkers would review viral rumors, publish debunks, and trigger warning labels on Facebook for content judged false. Their work helped slow the spread of fake news and provided users with correctives. If Meta de-emphasizes or abandons that system, one important brake on misinformation is lost.

Moreover, the very capacity of European media and civil society to counter disinformation may suffer due to Meta’s decision. Not widely understood by the public is that Meta’s fact-checking program has been a major funder of independent fact-checking initiatives worldwide. Meta would pay its fact-checking partners for each piece of content checked. According to analysis, Meta’s program “spans 130 countries today and is the biggest single funding source for factchecking worldwide,” with some 90 partner organizations. Many European fact-checkers – from big outlets like Agence France-Presse (AFP) to smaller local fact-checking NGOs – relied on the fees from checking Facebook content to sustain their operations. If Meta ends the program globally, those revenue streams dry up. As one report warned, perhaps a third of fact-checking organizations worldwide could shut down or at least shutter their fact-checking departments without Meta’s support. Others would have to lay off staff and scale back drastically.

For Europe, this could mean losing critical on-the-ground expertise that not only moderates Facebook content but also holds local politicians accountable and educates citizens. It’s an ironic and troubling twist: a policy change ostensibly about Facebook’s platform could end up crippling parts of Europe’s broader media ecosystem, leaving the continent more vulnerable to fakery just when it’s trying to fortify itself. In this sense, key decisions made in Menlo Park are directly impacting the resilience of European civil society.

European officials see a geopolitical dimension here: information integrity as a domain of contestation between democratic oversight and corporate power. If an American company can effectively decide to loosen standards and that in turn weakens Europe’s defenses against “information manipulation and foreign interference,” it becomes a sovereignty issue. It’s akin to an American firm controlling critical infrastructure abroad – except the infrastructure is the information landscape itself. The DSA was Europe’s attempt to reclaim some control, to say that if you operate in our digital space, you must respect our rules for safety and transparency. Zuckerberg’s stance – especially his vow to collaborate with the U.S. government to resist other countries’ attempts at regulation – can be read as a direct challenge to that principle. It suggests an attitude that U.S.-based platforms ultimately answer to U.S. political priorities first, and European rules second (if at all).

This dynamic also risks fueling transatlantic mistrust. EU policymakers have worked hard to not frame the digital regulation debate as “EU vs US.” They often stress that they welcome U.S. companies but just want them to behave responsibly. However, if Meta’s actions continue to be viewed as undermining EU democracy to align with Washington’s politics, there could be a rise in European calls for more drastic measures. Already, there are voices in Europe advocating for greater digital sovereignty – for instance, promoting European alternatives to U.S. social media platforms, or at least diversifying so no single private platform holds a monopoly on public discourse. While Facebook likely isn’t at risk of mass abandonment in Europe in the short term (users won’t easily leave en masse), these policy fights lay the groundwork for longer-term shifts. The EU might invest more in homegrown tech or require interoperability to dilute Facebook’s dominance.

We should also consider that Europe isn’t alone in its concerns. Meta’s fact-checking retreat has ripple effects globally – Brazil, for example, immediately demanded that Meta clarify whether it will keep fact-checking for Brazilian users, given Brazil’s own problems with election misinformation. If Meta holds firm, we could see a patchwork of international tensions: democracies around the world pushing back on an American firm’s attempt to set a “minimal moderation” standard. Europe, as a large bloc with a strong regulatory framework, is positioned to lead that pushback.

From a geopolitical angle, this situation underscores how intertwined global tech governance has become with democratic values and international relations. On one side, you have a narrative (championed by figures like Musk and seemingly now Zuckerberg) that frames any robust content moderation as an ideological project of the “global liberal elite” – and finds sympathy in nationalist, populist politics. On the other, you have entities like the EU (and many researchers, NGOs, etc.) who see curated information integrity as essential to protecting elections and open societies from manipulation by malign actors (be it state propaganda or extremist movements). It’s not an exaggeration to say we are witnessing an ideological contest for the future of the internet’s rules: Will it be a largely self-regulated, Silicon Valley-led model that aligns with U.S. First Amendment maximalism? Or a co-regulated model with public oversight as Europe is attempting?

Meta’s behavior in early 2025 pushes toward the former, but Europe will not easily cede ground. The geopolitical risk is that Europe and the U.S. end up in a kind of regulatory schism, with American companies stuck in between. This schism could complicate not just digital policy but broader EU-U.S. relations, especially if disagreements escalate into accusations of interfering in each other’s political affairs.

In practical terms for Europeans, the concern is immediate: will Facebook EU become a torrent of “fake news” and polarizing content because of a Silicon Valley policy change? Policymakers fear a regression to the days when, for example, during the 2015 refugee crisis or the 2016 Brexit referendum, false stories and extremist content on social media went largely unchecked, with real-world consequences. The DSA was supposed to ensure “that doesn’t happen again.” If an American corporate decision effectively nullifies some of those gains, Europe’s own capacity to govern its digital sphere is called into question.

To illustrate, imagine the upcoming 2025/2026 national elections in Europe: with fact-checkers sidelined, rumors (say, a false claim about ballot fraud, or a fabricated story about a candidate) might spread on Facebook with only, at best, a faint “community context” label that many users ignore or don’t even see. Fact-check articles by independent outlets might no longer trigger any platform response (since Meta “stopped demoting” content marked false ). The result could be greater diffusion and entrenchment of false beliefs among voters. Combating that would then rely entirely on external efforts – e.g., electoral authorities or NGOs issuing corrections – but without Facebook’s algorithm helping to slow the falsehood, those efforts struggle upstream. In short, the information disorder could worsen.

European institutions have poured resources into counter-disinformation units, media literacy, and coordination with platforms. If one major platform unilaterally steps back, it could undermine years of joint efforts. That is why the European Commission and national governments (like France’s) reacted with such concern and even indignation. To them, Meta’s move is not just an internal policy tweak; it’s an externality being imposed on Europe – one that could imperil European democratic processes and societal cohesion.

In framing these implications, a bit of light sarcasm might be warranted to underscore the irony: Europe has stood up a comprehensive legal regime (the DSA) to govern digital services, yet finds itself somewhat at the mercy of a policy shift announced via an awkward Facebook video from Mark Zuckerberg. It’s almost as if the European information space has a new “governor” in absentia – headquartered in Silicon Valley and increasingly influenced by the Trump administration. That reality is precisely what European lawmakers are uneasy about. As one Spanish fact-checking advocate put it, the DSA’s broad and forward-looking language is “being exploited by a US-based industry more and more reluctant to do anything meaningful against misinformation”, emphasizing that now that the law is in place, it simply “has to be enforced”. In other words, Europe wrote the rules to claim back authority; now it must use them assertively, lest its authority be hollow.

Zuckerberg’s Defiance of EU Law and Signals for Future Enforcement

Mark Zuckerberg’s recent stance – in both word and deed – can be interpreted as a direct challenge to the EU’s new tech regulation regime. For years, tech CEOs tried to accommodate or cosmetically comply with European rules to avoid open conflict. What seems different now is a more defiant tone from Meta’s leadership, almost daring the EU to react. This is a pivotal moment: how the EU responds will signal the future of platform governance enforcement and whether big tech’s alignment with one government (the U.S.) can trump its obligations to another (the EU).

What does this mean for future DSA enforcement? Firstly, the European Commission (tasked with enforcing the DSA for VLOPs) is likely to treat Meta’s actions as a test case. In late 2023, the Commission had already flexed its muscles by sending formal warnings and opening investigations – for example, it sent a request for information to X/Twitter over its high disinformation levels during the Russia-Ukraine war and even initiated the first formal DSA proceeding against X. Meta too came under the Commission’s microscope in 2024: the EU opened a probe into Meta for possibly breaching the DSA’s rules on advertising transparency and disinformation ahead of the European elections, noting Meta’s moderation efforts might be “insufficient.” That proceeding signaled that Brussels won’t hesitate to scrutinize Meta. Now, with the fact-check issue, regulators have even more cause.

The immediate next step Europe has taken is to insist that Meta conduct a fresh risk assessment if it plans to drop fact-checking in Europe. Such an assessment, under Article 35 of the DSA, would force Meta to analyze and document the impact of the change on things like the spread of harmful content, and what measures it will take to mitigate any new risks. Importantly, the European Commission can challenge the sufficiency of that risk assessment. If Meta were to blithely assert, “we think community notes will handle it, no big risks,” the Commission and the new European Board for Digital Services (EBDS) would almost certainly push back and could demand additional measures. They might, for instance, tell Meta that community notes alone are inadequate and that it must maintain some partnership with professional fact-checkers in the EU or develop alternative safeguards.

If Meta refused or ignored such feedback, the stage would be set for formal enforcement action. Under the DSA, the Commission can launch an investigation leading to a finding of non-compliance. Penalties can then follow: fines of up to 6% of Meta’s global annual revenue (which for Meta could be on the order of € 8 billion given its size). For even graver or continued violations, the DSA allows the Commission, with court approval, to ban the service in the EU temporarily. That “nuclear option” would not be taken lightly – it’s akin to shutting off Facebook/Instagram for all Europeans, something with immense political and social ramifications. However, the mere existence of that sanction is meant to show platforms how serious the EU is about enforcement.

Will the EU actually enforce in this case? There’s strong pressure for it to do so, to prove the DSA’s credibility. European lawmakers and officials have staked their reputations on the DSA being a game-changer that ends the era of platforms acting with impunity. If Meta visibly flouts the spirit of the law and the EU does nothing or issues only toothless statements, it could undermine the entire regulatory project. As Carlos Hernández-Echevarría of Spanish fact-checker Maldita put it: “At the end of the day, the European Commission will have to say publicly whether these platforms have ‘effective risk mitigation’ measures in place for misinformation… I don’t think [currently] it’s something you can say about a lot of them.”. In other words, the Commission will likely be compelled to declare whether Meta’s new strategy passes muster – and if not, take action.

That said, enforcing against Meta in a high-profile way will not be simple. It comes with political and diplomatic stakes. The U.S. government (especially under Trump) might object strongly to the EU penalizing an American champion firm for what it frames as free speech issues. We could see a scenario of the U.S. government “backing” Meta in some form – rhetorically or legally – making this not just a Commission vs Company issue, but a Brussels vs Washington showdown. This is new territory. In past EU tech enforcement (e.g., antitrust cases against Microsoft or Google, or privacy cases under GDPR), the U.S. government typically stayed out or even quietly agreed with some concerns. This time, Washington’s prevailing ideology might side with the tech company against the European regulator on principle. That could strain transatlantic relations, perhaps requiring discussions at higher political levels (e.g., an EU-U.S. tech council meeting) to avoid escalation.

Zuckerberg’s apparent confidence in defying EU law may stem from the belief that the EU will be slow or reluctant to enforce. Major DSA investigations could take years, including legal challenges in EU courts. Meta might be betting that it can implement its changes and absorb any reputational hits before any fine arrives – and even then, a fine (even a record one) might be seen as a cost of doing business, especially if Meta calculates that a looser content policy makes users more engaged (hence more ad revenue). However, this is a risky calculus. The EU, learning from the sometimes sluggish enforcement of past regulations, set up the DSA with a more centralized model (Commission-led for these big cases) precisely to act faster and avoid capture or delay at national levels.

We already have a small preview in the case of Twitter/X. When Elon Musk cut thousands of moderators and rolled back misinformation policies on X, the EU promptly issued warnings. By late 2023, the Commission had opened an investigation into X’s DSA compliance, particularly around disinformation and access to data for researchers. X was also uniquely called out for dropping out of the anti-disinformation Code of Practice, which Breton said was a mistake (subtext: the Commission will keep a closer eye on X). Musk’s antagonistic approach (trading barbs with Commissioner Thierry Breton on social media) did result in formal proceedings – a sign that the EU will enforce even if the company owner is high-profile and combative. In many ways, Musk’s X has set the stage; Zuckerberg’s Meta could be next in the dock.

One complicating factor is that key EU officials who championed the DSA (like Breton and EVP Věra Jourová on disinformation) have left. The new Commission and the Board for Digital Services will have to carry the torch. If Zuckerberg is perceived to be openly flouting EU law, it could actually harden the resolve of Brussels – no regulator likes being publicly challenged. It might also rally Member State governments to support tough action (we saw France’s strong statement of concern; others may follow).

Enforcement Scenarios to watch:

• Best case (from EU perspective): Meta engages constructively. Perhaps it holds off applying the policy in Europe, or agrees to keep some fact-checking capacity in the EU, and provides a rigorous risk assessment for any changes. The Commission then works with Meta to ensure community notes in Europe have built-in safeguards (for example, multilingual coverage, vetting of “community” contributors, etc.). Compliance is achieved without a major showdown.
• Defensive compliance: Meta might try a halfway approach – e.g., disable fact-checking on Facebook US, but quietly keep it running in Europe to avoid DSA trouble (essentially a regional differentiation). This is costly and perhaps technically tricky, but not impossible. It would mean the user experience diverges: Europeans still see fact-check labels and collaboration with, say, EU fact-checkers continues, even as U.S. users fully shift to community notes. Meta might prefer a unified global policy, but if pushed, they could maintain two regimes. However, Zuckerberg’s ideological statements suggest he dislikes that outcome (and it raises questions: would the Trump administration accept Facebook playing by EU “censorship” rules in Europe but not at home? Possibly, if it doesn’t affect U.S. users).
• Open confrontation: Meta proceeds to implement its new model globally, including Europe, without significant concessions. The Commission then likely launches a formal investigation into Meta’s handling of misinformation risk. We might see an order for corrective action – essentially Brussels mandating Meta to reinstate or introduce certain measures (e.g., bring back fact-check flags or reduce reach of proven false content). If Meta refused to comply with such an order, fines would ensue, and in an extreme scenario, a service suspension order could be contemplated. This path would be messy, making Meta a poster child for DSA enforcement. It could drag on in courts if Meta appeals any decisions. The political fallout would be intense, possibly framing the EU as attempting to “censor Facebook” and Meta (with U.S. support) as resisting for noble free speech reasons – a narrative the EU would vigorously contest.

It’s worth noting that Meta has a lot to lose by getting into a protracted fight with the EU. Europe is one of Meta’s largest markets. A 6% of revenue fine could be in the billions of dollars – not a parking ticket. The reputational damage of being labeled an unlawful actor under the DSA could also spur users to mistrust the platform or prompt investors to worry about further restrictions. Conversely, the EU also has something to lose: if it fails to enforce effectively, its vaunted DSA could look weak, encouraging other platforms to similarly ignore European concerns (the worst-case outcome being a “race to the bottom” where all major platforms reduce moderation because they assume the EU won’t actually stop them).

In the long run, this confrontation will likely shape the norms of how far platforms can go in global differentiation of content policy. If Meta is forced to keep robust anti-disinfo measures in the EU, it will show that regional regulation can indeed ring-fence certain standards. If Meta steamrolls through and the EU largely folds (hypothetically), it would signal that even the DSA might not stop a determined Big Tech backed by a superpower.

At this point, one can almost hear the tension in policymakers’ remarks. An EU official quipped, responding to U.S. criticism, that “In Europe, freedom of speech is… respected and protected in our Digital Services Act. So it's very misleading to say [the DSA censors]” – directly countering Zuckerberg’s “censorship” framing. The stage is set for a values debate: The EU will argue it is defending users’ rights to truthful information and a safe online environment, not censoring, while Meta (and perhaps the U.S.) will claim it is defending fundamental free expression against over-regulation. Somewhere in the middle lies the practical question: will Facebook comply with EU law or not?

Zuckerberg’s posture to date – effectively daring the EU by aligning with Trump – suggests he is willing to push the limits. It might be a negotiating tactic or a genuine principled stand (or a mix of both). Either way, the enforcement of the DSA is about to face its first big showdown. Zuckerberg has chosen to poke the Brussels bear at a time when that bear just grew some regulatory teeth. It remains to be seen whether the bear will simply growl or actually bite.

Conclusion

Facebook’s January 2025 rollback of fact-checking illuminates the friction between a U.S. tech giant’s strategy and Europe’s quest to regulate the digital realm. For EU policymakers and stakeholders, the episode is a call to action to assert Europe’s informational self-determination without overreaction. The tone must remain measured and principled: this is about upholding the rule of law and protecting citizens, not about anti-American sentiment or corporate bashing. At the same time, a bit of candidness – even humor – helps underscore what’s at stake.

In summary, Meta’s move to drop fact-checking (in favor of a crowd-based system) sets up a critical test of the Digital Services Act’s effectiveness. It raises the specter of a transatlantic rift in online standards, with Europe’s emphasis on minimizing disinformation seemingly at odds with a U.S. political push for “anything goes” on social media. Key decisions about what content circulates in Europe are being influenced by American politics, and that should galvanize European institutions to reinforce their own standards.

In conclusion, Meta’s fact-checking rollback has rung alarm bells, but it also offers clarity. It clarifies that some tech giants will not automatically bow to public responsibility or foreign regulation – they will follow their perceived interests. It clarifies that the EU’s experiment in digital regulation, the DSA, will soon face a high-profile challenge that will define its success. And it clarifies that the transatlantic alliance in the digital domain cannot be taken for granted; it must be continually nurtured and negotiated.

For EU policymakers, the task is to respond with a calm, cogent strategy that defends European values (such as truth, electoral integrity, and the rule of law online) without sliding into hyperbole. 

The coming months will reveal whether Meta’s leadership will recalibrate or double down. In either case, Europe should stand ready to assert: When it comes to the European information space, Meta must play by the EU’s rules, not try to rewrite them from Silicon Valley.