Global Digital Compliance Crisis: How EU/UK Regulations Are Reshaping US Business Operations and AI Content Moderation
Executive Summary
Bottom Line Up Front: The EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) is creating unprecedented global compliance challenges for US businesses, with UK regulations adding additional complexity post-Brexit. Meanwhile, AI-powered content moderation systems are causing mass account deletions and terms of service changes that could fundamentally alter online speech worldwide.
A July 2025 House Judiciary Committee report reveals that European regulators use the DSA: (1) to target core political speech that is neither harmful nor illegal; and (2) to pressure platforms, primarily American social media companies, to change their global content moderation policies in response to European demands. This investigation, based on subpoenaed documents from nine major tech companies, exposes how European censorship is infiltrating American digital spaces.
Compliance Hub
The European Censorship Threat: Key Findings
DSA's Global Reach and Impact
The House investigation found that nonpublic documents reveal that European regulators use the DSA: (1) to target core political speech that is neither harmful nor illegal; and (2) to pressure platforms, primarily American social media companies, to change their global content moderation policies in response to European demands.
Critical Discovery: At a secretive May 2025 European Commission workshop, regulators classified common political statements like "we need to take back our country"—a common, anodyne political statement—as "illegal hate speech" that platforms are required to censor under the DSA.
Targeting Political Speech and Satire
The Commission's censorship scope extends beyond illegal content to protected political expression:
- Political Speech: Documents also reveal that humor and satire are top censorship targets under the DSA. For example, the Commission's workshop asked platforms how they could use "content moderation processes" to "address . . . memes that may be used to spread hate speech or discriminatory ideologies"
- Real-World Examples: European national regulators have targeted:
- Poland's National Research Institute (NASK) flagged for TikTok a post that simply stated that "electric cars are neither ecological nor an economical solution"—core political speech on an important topic of public policy
- French authorities targeted satirical commentary about immigration policy
- German authorities classified calls for deportation of criminal aliens as "incitement to hatred"
The "Voluntary" Codes Deception
Despite their name, the codes of conduct are not "voluntary." Nonpublic emails between the European Commission ("the Commission") and technology companies show that Commission regulators repeatedly and deliberately reached out to pressure reluctant platforms to join the ostensibly "voluntary" codes.
When X left the Code of Conduct on Disinformation, the Commission retaliated by opening an investigation and reportedly planning to fine X over $1 billion.
UK Compliance Landscape: Post-Brexit Complexity
Current UK Digital Framework
2025 will see online service providers across the EU and UK continue to grapple with greater regulatory scrutiny, with new obligations either in force or due to apply imminently, all aimed at tackling illegal content and risk on their services.
Key UK Developments in 2025:
- Online Safety Act Enforcement: The UK Office of Communications ("Ofcom") has recently launched enforcement programmes that aim to assess industry compliance with the illegal harm duties under the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA)
- Data Protection Evolution: Due to the Data (Use and Access) Act coming into law on 19 June 2025, this guidance is under review and may be subject to change
- Continued EU Alignment: We updated this guidance as the European Commission has recently announced that they propose to extend the adequacy decisions for the UK for a further period of six months. With this extension, the free flow of data with the UK would be maintained until 27 December 2025
The EU Digital Services Act’s "trusted flaggers" and "codes of conduct" are not truly voluntary: they coerce platforms into censoring legal content as “misinformation” on a global scale, according to the House Judiciary Committee's report. This undermines fundamental US…
— Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs) August 12, 2025
UK vs EU Regulatory Divergence
While the UK maintains broad alignment with EU data protection standards, significant differences are emerging:
Data Protection: The UK government is seeking to implement its own updates to data protection regulations. Understanding the critical differences between the UK GDPR vs the EU GDPR is vital for businesses operating in the UK and the European Union (EU), who must navigate these GDPR changes in 2024
Enforcement Approach: The UK is developing its own enforcement priorities, particularly around child safety and women's protection online, while maintaining some independence from EU DSA requirements.
Implications for US Businesses
Multi-Jurisdictional Compliance Burden
US companies with customers or employees in the UK/EU face unprecedented compliance complexity:
- Dual Regulatory Systems: A UK-based company that processes customer data across the EU faces the challenge of complying with the UK GDPR and the EU GDPR
- Representative Requirements: A US organization with a UK subsidiary is now required to appoint an EU representative to comply with EU GDPR · An EU company doing business in the UK without a local establishment in the UK must appoint a UK representative to comply with UK GDPR
- Global Content Policies: Major social media platforms generally have one set of terms and conditions that apply worldwide. This means that the DSA requires platforms to change content moderation policies that apply in the United States, and apply EU-mandated standards to content posted by American citizens
My Privacy Blog
Financial and Operational Risks
Massive Penalties: Platforms deemed noncompliant with the DSA can be fined up to six percent of their global revenue
Operational Complexity: UK based companies now deal with both domestic and EU regulation meaning significant costs. They face the threat of fines from multiple states under data protection policy
Constitutional Concerns
The House report concludes that the DSA infringes upon Americans' First Amendment right to engage in free and open debate in the modern town square, as European definitions of "hate speech" and "disinformation" directly conflict with US constitutional protections.
AI-Powered Content Moderation Crisis
Mass Account Deletions
Recent incidents highlight the risks of AI-powered moderation systems:
Instagram Ban Wave: Instagram users report that their accounts were banned even though they had not violated the company's terms of service or other policies. Meta may have put a new AI system to work in recent weeks, and its content moderation efforts have left something to be desired for a host of Instagram users.
Scale of Impact: The wave has hit everyday personal profiles, creators, small businesses, and even Meta Verified subscribers who expect "priority support"
Terms of Service Evolution
AI Training Concerns: Meta admits to using AI and machine learning but stops short of specifying whether your content is used for training purposes. This lack of transparency leaves creators vulnerable to their work being exploited
Regulatory Pressure: Companies developing AI products, as we have noted, possess a continuous appetite for more and newer data, and they may find that the readiest source of crude data are their own userbases
The FTC has warned that A business that collects user data based on one set of privacy commitments cannot then unilaterally renege on those commitments after collecting users' data.
My Privacy Blog
Platform-Specific Changes
Content Moderation at Scale: To proactively moderate the content published on Roblox, we have been building scalable systems leveraging AI for approximately five years. Today, our infrastructure, ML models, and thousands of human experts work together to help make Roblox a safer, more civil place for our users
AI Limitations: Automation works for a large portion of content moderation but often fails in niche, critically important situations like the previously explained example
Compliance Strategies for US Businesses
Immediate Actions Required
- Regulatory Assessment
- Determine DSA applicability if serving EU users
- Assess UK Online Safety Act obligations
- Review current terms of service for AI training clauses
- Representative Appointments
- Appoint EU representatives for DSA compliance
- Designate UK representatives where required
- Ensure proper legal standing in both jurisdictions
- Content Policy Review
- Evaluate global content moderation policies
- Consider jurisdiction-specific implementations
- Document compliance efforts for enforcement proceedings
Medium-Term Adaptations
Technology Infrastructure:
- Implement geo-blocking capabilities while recognizing limitations
- Develop AI systems that can handle multiple regulatory frameworks
- Create audit trails for content moderation decisions
Legal Preparedness:
- Establish relationships with EU/UK legal counsel
- Develop incident response procedures for regulatory investigations
- Create data mapping for cross-border transfers
Business Model Adjustments:
- Consider regulatory arbitrage in location decisions
- Evaluate costs of multi-jurisdictional compliance
- Assess market exit strategies for heavily regulated jurisdictions
Long-Term Strategic Considerations
- Constitutional Protection: Support legislative efforts like the No Censors on our Shores Act to protect US speech rights
- Industry Coordination: Participate in industry groups developing common compliance approaches
- Technology Investment: Develop AI systems that can distinguish between legal speech and actual harmful content across jurisdictions
My Privacy Blog
Regulatory Outlook and Recommendations
Expected Developments
EU Enforcement Escalation: The Commission has not been shy to exercise its powers, issuing numerous tech companies with requests for information and opening formal investigations
UK-EU Divergence: The UK is instead turning to the international level for cross border solutions rather than bilateral agreements with the EU
US Response: Congressional oversight continues with ongoing investigations into foreign censorship impacts on American businesses.
Key Recommendations
- For US Businesses:
- Conduct immediate compliance audits
- Develop jurisdiction-specific content policies
- Invest in legal and compliance infrastructure
- Consider market prioritization based on regulatory burden
- For Policymakers:
- Strengthen protections for US businesses against extraterritorial regulations
- Develop reciprocal enforcement mechanisms
- Support international frameworks that protect free speech
- For the Industry:
- Develop common standards for AI content moderation
- Create transparency mechanisms for algorithmic decision-making
- Establish appeals processes that include human review
My Privacy Blog
Conclusion
The intersection of EU DSA requirements, UK post-Brexit regulations, and AI-powered content moderation represents an unprecedented challenge for US businesses. The House Judiciary Committee's investigation reveals that European regulations are not merely about creating safer online spaces—they're fundamentally reshaping global speech norms in ways that conflict with American constitutional principles.
Companies must navigate this complex landscape carefully, balancing compliance obligations with business objectives and free speech principles. The stakes are enormous: failure to comply could result in massive fines and market exclusion, while over-compliance could compromise core business values and user rights.
As this regulatory environment continues to evolve, US businesses should prioritize legal compliance while supporting efforts to protect American speech rights and push back against extraterritorial censorship that undermines the principles of free expression that have driven innovation and democratic discourse in the digital age.
The ultimate question facing US companies is not just how to comply with these regulations, but whether the cost of compliance—financial, operational, and philosophical—is worth the market access they provide. For many, the answer may increasingly be no.
This analysis is based on publicly available documents and regulatory guidance. Companies should consult with qualified legal counsel for specific compliance advice.
