Why the US Justice Department Wants to Join X’s Fight Against a €120 Million EU Fine

The United States has moved to join X and Elon Musk’s legal challenge to the European Commission’s €120 million fine under the Digital Services Act (DSA). Washington objects to what it sees as EU regulatory overreach; the Commission says its decision addresses three failures of platform transparency. Those are competing positions in an ongoing court dispute, not a ruling in Washington’s favor.13032

How the Justice Department entered the case

On September 24, 2026, the Justice Department announced that the United States had filed an application to intervene before the EU General Court in support of challenges seeking to annul the Commission’s decision. The related cases include X Internet and X Holdings v. Commission and Musk v. Commission. Reporting in February said the related actions had been lodged on February 16.1710

An application to intervene is a request to take part in existing litigation. It does not establish that the court has granted the US a role, accepted its arguments or set aside the fine. The cases remain challenges to an EU decision before an EU court—not an attempt to impose a US-court judgment on the Commission.17

What the €120 million fine is about

The Commission imposed the fine on December 5, 2025, in its first DSA non-compliance decision. Its findings concern three aspects of X’s service:3243

• Blue checkmarks: The Commission found the design deceptive because users could pay for a checkmark without X meaningfully verifying who was behind the account.3243
• Advertising repository: The Commission found that X’s database of ads lacked the transparency needed for scrutiny by researchers and others.32
• Researcher access: The Commission found that X failed to provide researchers access to public data as required under the DSA.32

The decision also set out steps toward compliance. A legal analysis of the decision describes a 60-working-day period for X to address the checkmark finding and a 90-working-day period to submit an action plan on advertising transparency and researcher access. Separately, March reporting said X had to pay the fine or provide a financial assurance while its challenge continued. Those requirements should not be mistaken for proof that the underlying transparency problems have been resolved.1435

Why Washington objects—and what remains open

Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate argued that the Commission had improperly extended its regulatory authority to American companies outside its jurisdiction. That is the Justice Department’s objection, not an established finding about the limits of EU authority.30 Supporters of X have also described the DSA dispute in free-speech terms; the Commission’s stated grounds for this particular fine, however, are the checkmark, advertising and researcher-access findings above. Neither framing alone settles the merits of X’s challenge.1132

The available sources confirm the related court actions but do not establish the precise allegations in each pleading, including reported claims of bias or procedural error. Nor do they establish that a congressional publication prompted the separate actions. Those details should not be treated as proven grounds of appeal without the pleadings.1710

The broader stakes are clear but prospective. The court must address the challenges to this DSA enforcement decision, while the US application raises a separate question about its participation in those cases. A grant of intervention would not itself invalidate the fine or create a general right for foreign governments to contest EU penalties. For now, Washington has sought a voice in X’s fight; the legality of the Commission’s decision remains for the EU court to decide.1732