Short answer
The Digital Services Act (DSA) does not require a platform to remove every item that someone reports, nor does it make platforms the final judges of what is illegal. Removal or another restriction may follow three different routes. A competent national authority may issue a binding order under the law that makes the content illegal. A hosting provider that obtains sufficiently clear knowledge of illegal content must act expeditiously if it wants to retain the DSA's hosting-liability exemption. A platform may also enforce its published terms against content that is lawful but contractually prohibited.
Each route has safeguards. The DSA prohibits a general monitoring obligation. Notices must be assessed in a timely, diligent, objective and non-arbitrary way. Affected users normally receive a specific explanation identifying the legal or contractual ground, facts, use of automation and available redress. Users of online platforms generally have at least six months to make a free internal complaint; the reconsidered decision cannot rest solely on automation. Certified out-of-court settlement, court proceedings, a complaint to a Digital Services Coordinator and compensation claims may also be available.
This account concerns services offered to recipients located or established in the EU and the Regulation as reviewed on 29 July 2026.
The DSA regulates decisions; it does not define all illegal content
Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 applies to intermediary services offered to EU recipients, irrespective of where the provider is established, and has applied generally since 17 February 2024. Some rules apply to all intermediary services, others to hosting providers, and the internal-complaint rules to online platforms. Article 19 generally exempts micro and small online platforms from the latter unless they are designated as very large online platforms.
“Illegal content” is information that, in itself or in connection with an activity, breaches EU law or compliant Member State law. That law might concern terrorism, child sexual abuse, hate speech, intellectual property or unsafe products. The DSA supplies a horizontal process; it usually does not itself decide whether particular content is unlawful.
Nor may authorities solve that complexity by requiring every intermediary to inspect everything its users send or store:
“No general obligation to monitor the information which providers of intermediary services transmit or store, nor actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity shall be imposed on those providers.”
—
The rule still permits voluntary moderation, targeted duties and specific orders.
Route one: a specific order from a competent authority
Article 9 standardises orders to act against one or more specific items of illegal content issued by a relevant national judicial or administrative authority. The order's coercive force and the finding of illegality come from the applicable EU or compliant national law, not from Article 9 alone.
An Article 9 order must identify its legal basis and authority, explain the illegality by reference to specific provisions, give exact locating information and state available redress. Its territorial scope must be strictly necessary under applicable law, the Charter and, where relevant, international-law principles. The provider must promptly tell the authority what effect it gave the order and when.
At the latest when effect is given, the provider must normally inform the user of the reasons, redress options and territorial scope. Article 17's ordinary statement does not apply because Article 9 has this tailored process. National civil and criminal procedure continues to govern the order and challenges to it.
Route two: actual knowledge and the hosting-liability exemption
Article 6 does not impose automatic liability for all user content. It gives a hosting provider a conditional exemption. The provider is protected while it lacks actual knowledge of illegal activity or content and, for damages, lacks awareness of facts making illegality apparent. The position changes once the required knowledge exists:
“upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the illegal content.”
—
This is a condition for the exemption, not a self-contained rule making every allegation a removal command. Liability still depends on the underlying law, and an authority may separately require an infringement to end.
Article 16 requires hosting services to offer an accessible electronic notice mechanism. A notice should explain the alleged illegality, identify the exact location, provide contact details subject to a limited exception, and confirm a good-faith belief in its accuracy. A notice creates Article 6 knowledge only where it allows a diligent provider to identify illegality without a detailed legal examination. The provider must decide in a timely, diligent, non-arbitrary and objective manner—not remove merely because a notice exists—and tell the notifier its decision and redress options.
Route three: the platform's terms and conditions
Platforms may restrict lawful information under contractual rules. Article 14 requires the terms to explain the restrictions, moderation tools, algorithmic decisions, human review and complaints. Enforcement must be diligent, objective and proportionate, with due regard to legitimate interests and Charter rights, including freedom of expression and media pluralism.
The statement of reasons must distinguish illegality from a restriction based only on the provider's terms.
What explanation must the affected user receive?
Article 17 applies when a hosting service restricts content as allegedly illegal or incompatible with its terms. It covers removal, disabling access and demotion, but also demonetisation, service restrictions and account suspension or termination. Where the provider knows the user's electronic contact details, it must give the explanation no later than the restriction.
“Providers of hosting services shall provide a clear and specific statement of reasons to any affected recipients of the service”.
—
The statement must identify the measure, duration, relevant territorial scope, supporting facts, whether a notice or voluntary investigation prompted it, and any use of automation. It must explain the legal ground or contractual clause relied on and applicable internal, out-of-court and judicial redress. It must be precise enough to make those remedies effective.
There are limits. Article 17 does not apply if the relevant contact details are unknown, to deceptive high-volume commercial content, or to Article 9 orders. The last category instead receives Article 9's explanation. The notifier also has an interest: Article 20 permits complaints about a platform's decision not to remove or restrict reported information.
How can an incorrect platform decision be challenged?
For a covered online platform, Article 20 gives the affected user or notifier at least six months from notification to lodge an electronic complaint free of charge. It covers decisions whether or not to remove, disable or reduce visibility, and decisions affecting a service, account or monetisation.
The system must be accessible and user-friendly. Complaints must be handled promptly, without discrimination, diligently and non-arbitrarily. Sufficient grounds showing that the decision was unfounded, the content was lawful and compliant, or the conduct did not justify the measure require reversal without undue delay.
“Providers of online platforms shall ensure that the decisions, referred to in paragraph 5, are taken under the supervision of appropriately qualified staff, and not solely on the basis of automated means.”
—
The platform must give a reasoned outcome and identify further redress. Under Article 21, a recipient may select a certified out-of-court dispute-settlement body. Both sides must engage in good faith, subject to a duplicate-dispute exception, but the body cannot impose a binding settlement. Court proceedings remain available at any stage. The settlement is free or nominal-cost for the recipient; the platform generally bears the body's fees if the recipient succeeds.
Under Article 53, recipients and mandated organisations may complain to the Digital Services Coordinator where the recipient is located or established. Both sides have a right to be heard and receive status information under national law. Article 54 permits compensation claims under EU and national law for loss caused by a provider's DSA breach; reversal alone does not guarantee damages.
Why fundamental-rights safeguards matter
As at 29 July 2026, there is not yet a mature body of Court of Justice case law interpreting these DSA complaint provisions. The General Court has decided DSA cases about designation as a very large online platform, but those judgments do not interpret Articles 17 or 20. Earlier case law nevertheless explains why safeguards around automated blocking are legally important. In Poland v Parliament and Council, Case C-401/19, the Grand Chamber examined a different regime—Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive—not the DSA. It held more generally that laws interfering with fundamental rights need clear rules and minimum safeguards, especially where automation is involved:
“The need for such safeguards is all the greater where the interference stems from an automated process”.
—
That judgment does not decide a DSA complaint. It supplies constitutional context for reading the DSA's requirements of proportionality, reasons, human supervision and effective redress with care.
A practical check after content is restricted
- Identify the decision-maker and whether the ground is illegality, a contractual rule, or both.
- Preserve the content, notice, timestamps, territory, duration and explanation.
- Check for the facts, exact legal provision or contractual clause, automation and redress.
- Use the internal complaint within the stated period; Article 20 requires at least six months where applicable.
- Explain with evidence why the content is lawful, compliant or the measure disproportionate.
- Consider certified settlement, court proceedings or a Digital Services Coordinator complaint.
Conclusion
The DSA does not operate a notice-means-removal system. A specific lawful authority order, sufficiently clear knowledge affecting the hosting-liability exemption, or enforcement of transparent platform terms may lead to removal or another restriction. The legal ground determines what the provider must do and how the decision can be challenged. For users, the essential protections are a specific reason, disclosure of automation, a meaningful human-supervised complaint, access to further independent remedies and a decision made with due regard to fundamental rights.
Sources
This article provides general legal information, not advice for a specific matter. Laws, facts and procedural deadlines may change the result. Follow the linked primary sources and obtain local advice before acting.