Elon Musk’s social media platform X has added a disclaimer to its blue checkmark feature. The move follows pressure from EU antitrust regulators, according to an unnamed source.

In July 2024, the European Commission charged X with misleading users about the checkmark.

It originally signified verified public figures but became available to paid subscribers after Musk acquired the company in 2022.

The disclaimer was added a week ago, though X has not acknowledged any wrongdoing. This action is not part of a settlement.

The European Commission confirmed its investigation is ongoing under the Digital Services Act, which targets harmful and illegal content on large platforms.

Penalties can reach up to 6% of a company’s global annual revenue.

.source-ref{font-size:0.85em;color:#666;display:block;margin-top:1em;}a.ask-tia-citation-link:hover{color:#11628d !important;background:#e9f6f5 !important;border-color:#11628d !important;text-decoration:none !important;}@media only screen and (min-width:768px){a.ask-tia-citation-link{font-size:11px !important;}}

🔗 Source: Reuters

🧠 Food for thought

1️⃣ The evolving role of verification symbols in establishing digital trust

Twitter’s blue checkmark verification system originated in 2009 specifically to address impersonation issues after a lawsuit from St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony La Russa over a fake account1.

This verification system represented a significant step in digital identity verification, evolving from earlier methods like physical symbols to modern digital trust indicators2.

Musk’s transformation of the blue checkmark from an identity verification tool to a subscription benefit fundamentally altered its meaning in the broader context of online trust systems, explaining why regulators view this change as potentially deceptive.

The EU’s concern reflects how verification symbols have become important trust signals in digital environments where deception is increasingly sophisticated, with research showing social media deception has proliferated alongside a 64% rise in social media users from 2005 to 20133.

The controversy highlights the tension between platform autonomy in designing verification systems and regulatory expectations that such systems maintain consistent meanings for user protection.

2️⃣ EU’s strategic approach to regulating tech platforms through substantial penalties

The potential fine facing X under the Digital Services Act (up to 6% of global revenue) follows an established pattern of EU enforcement against tech giants, with Google alone having faced €9.5 billion in antitrust fines since 20174.

The European Commission’s regulatory strategy emphasizes imposing significant financial penalties alongside mandating behavioral changes, rather than breaking up companies, as demonstrated by its €5.1 billion fine against Google for Android practices in 20185.

X’s preemptive disclaimer display reflects a growing recognition among tech companies that EU regulations have real financial consequences, as non-compliance with the DSA can lead to both massive fines and potential operational bans within the EU6.

The EU’s approach to platform regulation through the DSA targets specifically “Very Large Online Platforms” with over 45 million monthly EU users, establishing different obligations based on reach and potential harm7.

This case exemplifies how the EU has positioned itself as the world’s most assertive tech regulator, with its requirements often influencing global platform policies through what experts call the “Brussels Effect” on digital content moderation8.

Recent X developments

……