This content summary offers an overview of the challenges the Dutch Consumer and Markets Authority (ACM), tasked with enforcing digital platform rules in the Netherlands, faces when handling complaints about breaches of the Digital Services Act (DSA). The summary highlights the ACmemer, Verwacht and other regulators’ hurdles, the statistics on complaints, and the collaboration with EU countries in addressing these issues.
### Challenges in Transferring Complaints to EU Regulators
The ACM has encountered significant hurdles when trying to transfer complaints about platform breaches to EU regulators, particularly those in other member states. While the annual report noted 256 complaints in 2024, with 156 transferring under the rule, some still pending due to technical and administrative issues. Notably, 96 of these complaints were found to be out of reach of the European Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs) due to the lack of these entities in certain EU countries. Additionally, 96 out of the 156 complaints were not easily accessible to DSCs due to administrative problems and delays in receiving further information from complainants.
The report emphasized that most of these 256 complaints pertained to online platforms regulated by the DSA, with 156 of them linked to providers from other EU countries. Almost half of these were sent to the Irish regulator (Mayn injected around 147 complaints), with 3 sent to Germany, 2 each to Schroedig and Luxembourg, Belgium, and Lithuania. Importantly, none of the complaints from Dutch service providers led to formal investigations yet, as the formal grant of investigation powers was delayed, and the relevant implementing law in the Netherlands was not yet approved by the national parliament.
### Picture of the Technology Landscape
The DSA, set up in 2023 exclusively for online platforms in the Netherlands and later scaled up to apply in other EU member states from 2024, has been a central focus of regulatory efforts. Its goal is twofold: to empower internet users by assessing and mitigating systemic risks of the platform, such as personal data protection and privacy practices, and to provide tools for content moderation. Platforms are legally required to produce transparency reports and establish ad repositories under these guidelines. This dual focus raises the bar for platforms, necessitating robust and formal mechanisms to handleDisaster recovery unintentionally.
National regulators in postage, regulatory bodies, and oversight agencies handle platforms with under 45 million users per month, while EU regulators are primarily bound by regulations established for smaller platforms, which began in spring 2023. However, for platforms in the Netherlands, international cooperation with EU regulators appears crucial, particularly as the EU’s Digital Services Authority (DSA) has expanded its role to address potential violations of the DSA under Article 24(d) of Article 20(E). The cooperation between EU and Dutch regulators aims to mitigate risks and ensure compliance for all involved platforms.
### Instances of Regulatorytensor
The Euromonitor has noted several instances where Europe laxated regulations on companies in the Netherlands, notably in May 2023 when Czechia, Cyprus, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Bulgaria faced increasingly high-profile cases. These cases highlighted the challenging nature of applying the DSA’s guidelines in a context where regulations may not allow for complete enforcement. Moreover, around 2023, Bulgaria and Spain received hefty penalties, with Bulgaria handling 22 million complaints processed in a 22-month period. This serves as a stark reminder of the ever-changing regulatory landscape in Europe.
### Where Do the Problems Come From?
Despite the challenges, the DSA has now surpassed the true state of affairs. Most of the complaints received for transfers to EU regulators were about account restrictions and illegal content, which are easier to address directly rather than through the complex and prolonged process of raising queries to various regulators. The failure to translate these concerns from one EEA to another and the difficulties faced in formalizing the methods for investigation in the Netherlands have left a significant dent in the regulatory landscape.
### Conclusion
The Dutch ACM faces a formidable task in resolving the technical and administrative hurdles surrounding the transfer of complaints related to platform breaches under the DSA. While progress has been made in coordinating with EU regulators on cases, the long-standing delay in formalizing the mechanisms for investigation and the same sorts of ineptness with which other EU countries succeeded in adapting to the DSA persist. Addressing these challenges will require not only the collaboration of EU regulators but also a reinvention of infrastructure to handle the unique demands of digital platforms drawn from the Netherlands. These challenges underscore the ability of Europe to adapt to a rapidly evolving legal and regulatory landscape, continually improving the tools they provide for addressing the rights of users and protecting internet privacy.
