BRUSSELS — As tech mogul Elon Musk interviews German far-right leader Alice Weidel on X this Thursday night, European tech regulators are poised to monitor for potential infringements of EU regulations.
Regulators will focus less on the dialogue and more on how Musk’s platform and its algorithms promote the livestream to over 100 million users in the EU. A significant concern is whether X provides an unfair advantage to Weidel’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in comparison to its competitors.
This online interview arrives weeks before Germany’s general election on February 23, 2025, with the anti-immigration AfD currently polling in second place. Musk has recently lauded the AfD as Germany’s “last spark of hope,” which has led to serious allegations of election interference.
A team of up to 150 officials from the European Commission in Brussels and Seville will scrutinize whether X complies with the EU’s digital regulations. They possess extensive investigative authority, including the ability to visit X’s offices and access its algorithms and internal communications.
The enforcers of the Digital Services Act (DSA) at the Commission’s DG CONNECT tech division are supported by experts from the European Centre for Algorithmic Transparency in Spain.
Evidence gathered during the livestream may strengthen the EU’s landmark case against X under the DSA. The bloc formally accused Musk’s platform of failing to adhere to EU standards in July and is nearing a decision — a pioneering judgment under the tech law.
However, a resolution is not expected by Friday morning. The timeline remains uncertain, and imposing a fine on X could initiate a diplomatic rift with the incoming U.S. administration of Donald Trump, who has recently aligned himself closely with Musk.
Ultimately, any decision on enforcement will be made at the highest political levels within the Commission.
EU tech official Henna Virkkunen and her colleague Michael McGrath informed lawmakers in a letter this week that the Commission intends to “vigorously pursue the case” and hopes to reach a conclusion as soon as legally feasible.
To date, the Commission has not yet enacted any potential penalties under the DSA. Fines could reach up to 6 percent of global annual revenue, and regulators may mandate corrective actions from non-compliant firms. Additionally, officials can place a company under enhanced supervision to ensure compliance, imposing daily fines until adherence is achieved.
Algorithm Boosting Concerns
The EU’s digital watchdogs are particularly concerned about whether Musk might manipulate the X algorithm to his advantage, potentially elevating his content or granting AfD leader Weidel greater visibility while suppressing rival content. Such actions could constitute an unfair advantage and a violation of EU social media regulations.
“To what extent will [content] be amplified? This is the focus of the Commission’s investigation,” Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier stated during a briefing on Monday.
The Commission will also closely monitor how X adheres to the DSA, which mandates platforms to remove illegal content and combat disinformation while requiring them to identify and address threats to elections and public discourse.
X, as a significant platform, falls directly under the EU’s DG CONNECT digital department’s oversight. The social media platform was the first target of the DSA in December 2023, with the investigation escalating to formal charges in July for misleading users, lacking transparency, and failing to share public data.
Regnier informed POLITICO that the Commission’s DSA enforcement team may expand the current investigation and seek further access to information based on the algorithm’s treatment of the AfD livestream.
Enhanced Investigative Powers
Researchers note that the Commission now possesses new powers to assess whether the livestream received algorithmic favoritism.
The first step may involve requesting X for “any internal communications related to the issue,” noted Mathias Vermeulen, public policy director at the AWO Agency law firm.
Vermeulen pointed to media reports suggesting that when Musk’s 2023 post about the Super Bowl garnered less engagement than a post from U.S. President Joe Biden, Musk’s team utilized the company’s Slack messaging platform to coordinate efforts to amplify his reach.
If a similar situation arises now, the EU Commission could seek evidence of such communications.
“The [European Commission] can request messages that are publicly posted on Slack,” Vermeulen explained.
Alternatively, the Commission might dissect the platform’s recommendation algorithm.
The EU’s social media law imposes additional transparency requirements on platforms using recommendation systems. This is where the EU’s algorithm experts in Seville will play a vital role, utilizing their expertise to analyze how the platform determines what content to promote.
“The Commission could investigate whether Alice Weidel, or any other user, received a so-called power user multiplier score in its recommendation algorithms,” Vermeulen elaborated.
This score could enhance the visibility of a user’s posts.
A study conducted at Queensland University in the previous year indicated that X may have adjusted its algorithm to amplify the reach and interaction of Musk’s posts.
Investigating Self-Promotion
In recent months, Musk has emerged as a prominent ally of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, making provocative statements regarding European politics. This has prompted European lawmakers to urge the Commission to investigate his potential self-promotion.
“I am trying to ascertain whether Musk is leveraging a major information platform he owns in ways that could infringe upon others’ freedom of speech, potentially hard-coding a multiplier into his own reach,” stated Damian Boeselager, a German Greens MEP, who has formally requested Virkkunen to investigate the matter.
While the Commission has in-house expertise, it may also collaborate with researchers and civil society organizations to monitor the livestream event.
“Numerous expert organizations equipped for data scraping and analysis will likely be observing the event,” remarked Eliška Pírková, a senior policy analyst at digital rights group Access Now.
However, challenges may arise: Last July, the Commission criticized X for obstructing researchers’ access to public data.
“This creates significant barriers to transparency, and without adequate transparency, accountability is compromised,” Pírková concluded.
