Digital Services Act (DSA): What creators, influencers and agencies need to know now

Key Facts:

• Stricter transparency obligations for platforms: The Digital Services Act (DSA) forces Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) such as TikTok, Instagram, YouTube and X (Twitter) to make comprehensive disclosures – from advertising information to recommendation algorithms. Users should be able to clearly recognize when it is advertising and why they are seeing certain content.
• Influence on influencer marketing: For influencers and creators, this means stricter advertising labeling and potentially changed reach mechanisms. Advertising must be transparently marked as such – hidden ads are considered illegal. At the same time, changes to recommender systems(e.g. chronological feeds instead of personalized algorithms) are likely to influence content distribution. Content moderation will also become more transparent: Platforms will have to justify removed content and provide procedures for appeals, which will benefit influencers.
• First EU enforcement measures: The EU Commission is already cracking down. Proceedings are underway against X/Twitter for possible DSA violations – including inadequate content moderation, manipulative design elements (“dark patterns”), lack of advertising transparency and blocked researcher access. In July 2024, the Commission made a preliminary finding that X had breached basic obligations, for example through a misleading payment system for the blue tick and the lack of a searchable archive of advertisements. TikTok has also been pilloried: although it offers an ads archive, it does not provide sufficient information on content, targeting and the advertiser – and is therefore in breach of the DSA according to the initial assessment.
• New liability risks for agencies: social media agencies and management can no longer duck away. The DSA and stricter influencer marketing legal requirements are increasing the pressure to ensure compliance. Authorities in Europe are increasingly penalizing violations of advertising transparency – not only influencers, but also advertising clients and agencies are liable. In Poland, for example, a company was fined 5 million złoty for recommending ambiguous labels to its influencers.
• Compliance is now essential: Creators and agencies should take proactive measures to meet the DSA requirements. Clear advertising labeling (e.g. “#Advertising” at the beginning of a post), use of platform tools (“Paid partnership with…” tags) and transparent communication guidelines are mandatory. It is also important to be prepared for more data and algorithm transparency – for example, insight into reach factors or use of the new chronological feed options that platforms must offer. Investing in compliance now minimizes legal risks and can strengthen the trust of audiences and advertising partners.

Transparency obligations for VLOPs: What do TikTok & Co. have to disclose?

With the DSA, the EU has opened a new chapter in platform regulation. Very Large Online Platforms (over 45 million users) are now subject to strict transparency and disclosure obligations. The idea behind this: The “black box” of large social media platforms should become more transparent – for users, authorities and business partners. Specifically, the DSA requirements for VLOPs include the following:

• Advertising transparency: Platforms must indicate to the user for each ad that it is an advertisement, on whose behalf it was placed and according to which main criteria he or she will see this ad. In addition, certain sensitive data may no longer be used for personalized ads (no targeting based on religion, sexual orientation or political views, for example) – and advertising aimed at children is expressly prohibited. There is to be a publicly accessible advertising archive for all ads placed on the platform. This archive must provide information on the content of the ad, the target group targeting and the advertiser and be searchable. Reality is still lagging behind here: the EU Commission recently complained that TikTok’s existing ad archive is inadequate because precisely this information is missing and there is no comprehensive search function. X/Twitter also tripped itself up with an “advertising repository” that is difficult to access – a violation of DSA obligations according to the EU.
• Algorithm and recommendation systems: The major platforms must disclose how their recommendation algorithms work. Users have a right to know the main parameters according to which content is sorted, prioritized or filtered. The DSA also stipulates that VLOPs must offer at least one alternative to the personalized feed. This means, for example: Instagram & Co. need a chronological feed (or similar) that is not based on profiling. This measure is intended to give users more control – they can free themselves somewhat from total dependence on the algorithms’ secret recipes. For influencers, however, this could mean that viral reach miracles become more difficult to plan if more users switch to unfiltered feeds. On the other hand, the platforms also have to disclose the main factors of their algorithm – a potential peek behind the curtain for creators that helps them adapt their content strategies (although details and “secret sauce” will probably remain a trade secret).
• Content moderation & reporting obligations: Mandatory transparency also means that platforms will no longer be allowed to conduct their content moderation in secret. From February 2024, all major services will have to submit regular reports detailing the scope and methods of their moderation. This includes figures on reported posts, removed content, moderation teams deployed and automated filtering systems. VLOPs even have to publish these reports every six months. For example, they must disclose the size of their content monitoring team, their qualifications and which languages are covered. This requirement already has concrete consequences: When X stated in its first DSA transparency report that it had reduced the number of content moderators by almost 20% (and only covered 7 instead of 11 EU languages), the EU immediately demanded explanations. This shows that platforms will be judged on their Trust & Safety resources in the future, and staff cuts in moderation can become a compliance issue.
• DSA transparency database: If a platform removes content due to legal violations, it must in future enter this in a database managed by the EU – together with the reasons according to DSA criteria. This will create publicly accessible “removal diaries”. This may sound abstract to creators at first, but it contributes to the level playing field: Arbitrary or non-transparent deletion actions by large platforms should attract attention. In case of doubt, influencers whose posts have been deleted can better understand whether everything is above board. In addition, the DSA stipulates that users must be clearly informed as to why their post was removed or their account blocked and how they can lodge a complaint. Influencers in particular, who build their business on social media, know this: A deleted post or shadow ban without explanation can be frustrating – this is where the DSA now creates rights to transparency and appeal.

In summary, the DSA is forcing the major platforms to be significantly more open. For digital entrepreneurs – whether brand or creator – this means better insight into the rules of the game, but also new complexity. Those who know how to use the new transparency tools (e.g. evaluating advertising libraries, reading algorithm information) can gain strategic advantages. At the same time, it is clear that the golden age of relying on opaque mechanisms (or exploiting their gray areas) is coming to an end. EU platform regulation gets serious about accountability.

Effects on influencer marketing: advertising labeling, reach, content moderation

What do these new obligations mean in concrete terms for influencer marketing and the daily work of creators, influencer agencies and marketing departments? They are both opportunities and challenges:

1. advertising labeling and transparency: Influencer marketing law already stipulates that advertising must be labeled as such. This is not a DSA-exclusive requirement, but has long been enshrined in the German Unfair Competition Act (UWG) and EU consumer protection law. What is new, however, is the context of strict enforcement. The DSA has made advertising transparency a principle – platforms will also (have to) demand this principle from their users. In practice, it is to be expected that social media platforms will increasingly use tools and notices to urge influencers to provide correct labeling. Hidden advertising – be it in the form of a seemingly spontaneous post that is actually sponsored or through disguised affiliate links – will be classified even more consistently as illegal content and can be removed from platforms. In fact, the EU Commission classifies influencers who post on behalf of a business as “traders” and demands full transparency of commercial communication. A violation (lack of labeling) is considered a misleading business practice and can result in official penalties. The figures speak volumes: In an EU-wide review (the so-called sweep), around 75% of the influencer posts reviewed at the end of 2023 did not comply with the prescribed advertising labels – a rate that set alarm bells ringing. The message is clear: this needs to be cleaned up. Influencers and their management teams should therefore now thoroughly check every post to see whether there is an advertising purpose somewhere – and mark it crystal clear(see also our compliance tips below).

2. algorithmic reach and content distribution: The question “How do I crack the algorithm?” is on the mind of every social media player. The DSA could change the rules of the game. On the one hand, as mentioned above, through the introduction of non-personalized feeds. If a relevant number of users on TikTok, for example, increasingly use the “Follow me” feed (instead of “For you”), the viral force of TikTok’s recommendation algorithm could be slowed down somewhat – in other words, reach may be distributed more evenly according to follower numbers instead of mysterious preferences. However, it remains to be seen whether users will accept this offer en masse; after all, many appreciate the algorithmic curation. Secondly, the DSA forces platforms to analyze risks: they must identify and mitigate risks for society and users (e.g. disinformation, incitement, even fraudulent advertising). In practice, this could mean that certain content is actively downgraded by the algorithm – for example, extremely politically charged material or trends that have been systematically identified as harmful. Influencers in the gray area (such as fake news or controversial content) must expect to come under greater scrutiny; their reach could be restricted by platform measures if their content is classified as a systemic risk. Conversely, legal content that may have been reported en masse by trolls in the past now has a better chance of not disappearing unjustifiably – due to the new review and objection rights. For serious creators, the DSA can therefore also mean protection: less chilling effect due to random deletions.

3. content moderation and freedom of expression: Many influencers know the dilemma: You post something completely legal, but the platform removes it or puts an age restriction on it – often automatically or at the behest of haters. This is where the DSA actually brings improvements. Platforms must have clear rules and apply them consistently, otherwise there is a risk of penalties. But above all: there is a right to justification and objection. If a post is deleted, the platform must state on the basis of which rule and, if applicable, which law it was inadmissible. And the creator can lodge a complaint, first internally, then with out-of-court bodies or even with the competent authority if the moderation appears arbitrary. These formal rights considerably strengthen the position of creators. Although this does not mean that every banned account is quickly reinstated, it does put platforms under pressure to examine their moderation decisions more carefully. Strongly opinionated but not polemical: A paradigm shift is emerging here. Whereas people used to be at the mercy of content managers, the DSA establishes something like basic procedural rights on social media. For influencers whose income depends on their visibility, this can be worth its weight in gold. However, the obligations are also growing. Those who repeatedly post illegal content, for example, must expect to face tougher sanctions (including account suspension) – and the platforms are now required to report and crack down on such notorious violations more consistently across the EU.

The bottom line is that the DSA professionalizes the influencer marketing environment. Wild growth (be it in the form of undisclosed ads or “Wild West” content) is contained. This creates fairer competition for serious creators and brands: transparency and compliance pay off in the long term, while trickery is subject to higher risks. Of course, we will have to observe how strictly the platforms apply these rules to individual posts in practice – the balance between the free play of social media and regulation is an ongoing issue. However, one thing is clear: the major trends (authenticity, honest labeling, high-quality content) tend to be reinforced by the DSA. Marketing managers would do well to align their strategies with these new guidelines now.

EU gets serious: First DSA implementations using the example of X/Twitter

Regulations are only as good as their enforcement. The EU therefore did not hesitate for long: shortly after the DSA obligations came into force, the most prominent players were scrutinized closely. First and foremost X (formerly Twitter), where Elon Musk is known to have radically overhauled personnel and guidelines. The EU Commission opened proceedings against X in December 2023 – the first of its kind under the DSA. The allegations read like a textbook of the new duties:

• Inadequate risk management & moderation: X is said to have taken hardly any foresighted action against systemic risks (e.g. disinformation) and to have reduced its own moderation capacities. In fact, X proudly announced that it had saved costs – but this was precisely what attracted negative attention. The EU asked in detail for internal documents as to why X had reduced the number of moderators in the EU by 20% and no longer covered many languages. A hot potato, especially in view of the 2024/25 elections: Less moderation could mean more fake news, which the DSA wants to prevent.
• “Dark patterns” and misleading users: The DSA prohibits manipulative design that tempts users to take unwanted actions. At X, the new Blue Check subscription came in for particular criticism. Suddenly, anyone could obtain the former verification checkmark for a fee – a potentially misleading system from the EU’s point of view. Users believe that an account is trustworthy and “verified”, when in fact it is only a paying customer. The Commission deemed this design to be deceptive to users. A blow to Musk’s business model – but a clear message that such practices are being targeted.
• Advertising transparency and data access for research: X has obviously made a particular mistake here. The DSA requires a freely accessible, easily searchable ad archive. X did offer some kind of ad database, but made access unnecessarily complicated and incomplete. The Commission criticized X for not providing a proper, searchable ad repository, but instead obstructing analysis through design hurdles and access barriers. This makes it difficult to monitor and research advertising risks (such as political ads or fraud). Also critical: X shielded its data from independent research. APIs were expensive or cut, scraping was legally prosecuted – contrary to the DSA requirement to allow important data access for testing purposes. In short: X acted like a defiant child hiding its toys, while the EU wants transparency for everyone.

The consequences? X received an official “Statement of Objections” (preliminary findings of violations) in July 2024. The company was able to comment on this. If the Commission sticks to its assessment, X could face severe penalties – up to 6% of its annual global turnover. In Musk’s case, that would theoretically be billions. In addition, X could be ordered to take remedial action and even face daily fines if it continues to fail to comply. At the same time, investigations are underway against other major players: TikTok (as mentioned due to advertising archive), AliExpress, but also Meta/Facebook are under scrutiny. The EU’s message is unmistakable: it wants to set an example that the DSA is not a toothless tiger. Brussels is demonstrating its self-confidence, especially in the face of US tech giants – true to the motto: “No one is above the law, no matter how big.”

For influencers, agencies and companies that use social media, these enforcements also have an indirect effect: they show that the days of laissez-faire are over. Platforms will (have to) take DSA requirements seriously and adapt their behavior. For example, we could soon see an improved advertising transparency center on X – useful for all those who run campaigns there. Or TikTok will finally implement a fully functional ad archive with a search function. Also, no platform will be able to afford to grant known influencers loopholes in labeling; regulatory attention is heightened. Overall, strict enforcement ensures greater legal certainty: if everyone plays by the same rules, honest players have an advantage. However, this also increases the compliance pressure on everyone involved in the influencer marketing ecosystem.

Liability risks for agencies and management – what to look out for?

For a long time, brands and their advertising agencies were able to sit back and relax when it came to influencer marketing, following the motto: “The influencer is liable for legal violations – we only commissioned them.” This attitude carries a high risk in the new regime. Agency liability in the social media sector is becoming more real. Why?

Firstly, authorities and courts in Europe have made it clear that all parties involved are responsible for surreptitious advertising. The EU Commission itself emphasizes that not only the influencers (“traders”), but also the advertisers and intermediaries behind them are bound by the transparency obligations. In other words, if a campaign misleads consumers, the brand and possibly the agency can be prosecuted. In Italy, for example, the competition authority regularly sends warning letters to influencers and their agencies to draw attention to the labeling obligation. And as mentioned, in Poland, a company itself was asked to pay because it allowed influencers to work with unclear hashtags. Such cases raise awareness: Agencies cannot claim to have only “mediated”. Anyone who manages a campaign is at least jointly liable – for example as a “joint tortfeasor” in the event of anti-competitive behavior.

Secondly, the new DSA rules expand the scope of potential problem areas. Example: An influencer agency manages 50 creators and perhaps uses its own tools or an app to play out campaigns. However, as soon as you take over platform functions yourself (such as organizing third-party content), DSA obligations as a hosting service could theoretically become relevant. Although traditional influencer agencies are generally not online platforms within the meaning of the law, they must be extremely careful not to be considered such a service (for example, if user-generated content is collected on agency websites). Furthermore, if agencies are involved in community management (e.g. moderating comments on behalf of clients), they should be familiar with the DSA requirements for moderation. If, for example, they delete user comments on behalf of a client without reason or explanation, this could – to put it bluntly – result in conflicts with the new transparency standards.

Thirdly: contractual liability. Large brands, sensitized by the regulation, will increasingly insist on compliance clauses in contracts with agencies and influencers. Any agency that promises a client that all campaigns are DSA-compliant is putting itself under obligation. Violations not only result in fines from the authorities, but also claims for damages or contractual penalties from clients who have secured themselves. Example: A fashion manufacturer has an influencer campaign coordinated by an agency. It later turns out that some posts were not labeled as advertising and the consumer protection authority imposes a fine on the manufacturer. The manufacturer will then seek recourse from the agency if the contract contained corresponding assurances.

Conclusion for agencies/management: They must expand their role from mere intermediary to compliance manager. The due diligence obligations in influencer marketing are increasing. This means: training for influencers in labeling, internal checklists before post publication, contractual safeguards (having influencers guarantee that they will not use unfair methods), monitoring of published content and rapid correction in the event of violations. In short, agencies are not automatically liable for every misstep by their talents – but if they systematically look the other way or even instigate breaches of the law, they are more likely to be held liable in future than in the past. Risk and reputation management should be adjusted accordingly.

Compliance measures: How creators and agencies are meeting DSA requirements

In view of the new legal situation, the question arises for creators, influencers and their agencies/managers: What needs to be done to be on the safe side? Here are some practical recommendations:

• Always clearly label advertising: This point cannot be emphasized often enough. Any form of cooperation, product placement or payment (including free samples!) must be recognizable as advertising. It is best to clearly write “advertising” or “advertisement” at the beginning of the post or video. Hashtags such as #ad, #advertisement or in German #Werbung, #Anzeige are helpful – but only as a supplement, not hidden between 20 other hashtags. Rule of thumb: An average follower must understand at first glance that it is advertising content. Unclear labels such as “#sponsoredby” or flowery formulations (“Thanks to brand X for the great product”) are not enough.
• Use platform tools: Most social media platforms now provide their own labeling features – such as “Paid partnership with [brand name]” tags on Instagram or the option on YouTube to display a “contains paid advertising” notice. These tools should definitely be used, as they not only create transparency, but often also report in the backend of the platform that it is an advertising post. This can be relevant so that the post is correctly sorted into the platform’s advertising archive (keyword: influencer transparency obligation in the platform database). At the same time, it signals to the algorithm that there is advertising here – which may limit the reach (as ads often rank worse), but compliance must take precedence over reach.
• Target group protection and data check: Creators who particularly target young people or vulnerable groups should be aware that the EU provides special protection for children. Content that is clearly aimed at children may no longer be monetized with personalized advertising. Agencies should pay attention to this in campaigns: If a product is marketed to teens, choose contextual placements rather than microtargeting by age group – the latter may violate the DSA. In general, advertising partners and influencers should scrutinize which targeting criteria they use. Highly personalized ads on social media are under scrutiny. If in doubt, it is better to use a broad spread than risky characteristics (e.g. health topics, political attitudes) for target group selection.
• Understanding algorithms and diversification: The new Recommender rules (algorithm disclosure, option without profiling), creators get a chance to reach their audience in different ways. It can be useful to actively inform your own community: “Hey, add me to your favorites so you don’t miss my posts in the chronological feed!” or to be present on other channels (newsletters, alternative platforms) so as not to be solely dependent on a provider’s algorithm. At the same time, creators should study the published information on algorithm factors (where available). For example, if Instagram discloses that Frequency of interaction and Watch-Time main parameters in the feed, content can be optimized accordingly – without slipping into dark growth hacks. The platforms’ transparency reports could also reveal which types of content have been increasingly removed or deprioritized. This reveals which topics or formats are sensitive. Marketing teams should use this knowledge to adjust their strategy (away from problematic topics and towards content that is prioritized or treated neutrally by algorithms).
• Documentation and monitoring: Agencies should keep compliance documentation for every campaign: Were all posts correctly labeled? Were the influencers briefed on dos and don’ts beforehand? Are there screenshots/receipts of the labeling? Monitoring is also advisable after the launch: e.g. randomly checking whether the influencers have forgotten to label a story frame. If the platform itself provides information (such as YouTube’s “contains advertising content” icon), check whether it is displayed. React immediately in case of violations: Have the influencer post edited, attach a comment (“This post is advertising for …”) or, in extreme cases, remove the post and repost it with a correction. Quick corrections can mitigate annoyance if necessary.
• Legal monitoring and training: The field of DSA for creators and platform law continues to develop. It doesn’t hurt to follow regular updates – be it via specialist blogs (à la itmedialaw.com 😉), via communications from the Commission or through exchanges in industry associations. Agencies should consider having their staff and talent pool trained in the basics. A compliance guide could be created that summarizes the most important points (advertising labelling, permitted vs. prohibited advertising practices, dealing with complaints) and distributed to all influencers. A crisis plan is also part of this: What to do if an official letter flutters into the house because of an influencer post? Who contacts the lawyer? How do you communicate publicly if necessary? Proactive preparation saves nerves in an emergency.

To summarize: compliance is king in the new era of DSA. Those who go the extra mile now to ensure transparency and compliance will benefit in the medium and long term. Not only will fines and legal disputes be avoided, but your reputation with followers and customers will also improve. At a time when consumers and regulators are mercilessly uncovering who is cheating, honesty is the best marketing. The Digital Services Act may appear to be a bureaucratic monster at first glance, but it helps to steer the Wild West of influencer marketing in an orderly direction – for the benefit of all honest market participants.

Conclusion: A new era for influencer marketing and platforms

The DSA marks a turning point: the major social media platforms are growing up – they are under supervision and must take responsibility. For creators, influencers, agencies and marketing departments, this means more clarity, but also more accountability. Influencer marketing law is being harmonized and tightened across Europe: no one can afford to behave in a non-transparent manner without risking consequences. At the same time, the rules open up opportunities for fairer growth and planning security.

Of course, it remains to be seen how rigorously the requirements will ultimately be enforced once the initial hype has died down. Some are already criticizing that the new obligations could be too bureaucratic and stifle innovation. On the other hand, in an industry that has benefited from years of regulatory freedom, more order may not be a bad thing. To put it bluntly: The DSA is not an enemy of the influencer business – it’s more like a long-needed MOT for the platform economy. Good, creative, authentic content will continue to find its audience. But the time for backroom tricks (be it algorithms or surreptitious advertising) is coming to an end.

Entrepreneurs in the digital business should see the DSA as a wake-up call to do their homework now. Those who are compliant early on can even turn it into a competitive advantage – according to the motto: “We adhere to the highest transparency standards.” This goes down well with informed customers and users. EU platform regulation such as the DSA may still cause uncertainty in the details, but the general direction is clear: transparency, responsibility, fairness. It is up to creators and companies to embrace these values not as a burden, but as the basis for sustainable success.

Finally, it should be remembered that the digital attention economy remains dynamic. Regulation is only a framework – it is filled in by the players. With this in mind: stay creative, but play by the new rules. Then there will be enough room for successful influencer marketing even in a strictly regulated environment. Because the DSA does not change one thing: good content and honest commitment cannot be beaten by any regulation.