US makes changes to EU Digital Services Act a condition of final trade deal

Having hurled accusations of censorship at the UK Online Safety Act, the U.S. government is putting more pressure on Europe to amend its Digital Services Act (DSA) as a condition of finalizing a trade deal between the two sides.

A report in the Financial Times cites two EU officials who say the U.S. “wanted to keep the door open for possible concessions on the bloc’s Digital Services Act, which forces Big Tech companies to police their platforms more aggressively.”

The EU has said that’s a non-starter. But the U.S. appears to be insisting that the EU cave to its demands before it signs the joint statement formalizing the tariff agreement the two parties announced in July.

The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has positioned itself firmly in the corner of Big Tech, notably with the hiring (and subsequent firing) of X CEO Elon Musk to run his would-be efficiency department – but also at the international negotiating table. Free speech is the excuse, but Trump’s wrangling of UK and EU online safety laws is being done on behalf of the platforms they affect. Facebook, Google and other Silicon Valley headliners remain resistant to regulations. Trump may be able to win them exemptions, or to neuter the laws altogether.

In early August, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a so-called “action request” to U.S. ambassadors in Europe, instructing them to “convey U.S. concerns about the DSA and the financial costs for U.S. companies.”

4chan seizes opportunity to engage in threats outside of toxic chat forum

Nor is it just the big mainstream tech firms pushing back against regulators. In a deeply unsurprising move, notorious online forum 4chan has hired lawyers to thumb its nose at the UK’s OSA.

A statement posted to the X account of law firm Byrne & Storm says it is responding to a provisional notice from Ofcom, indicating its intention to fine 4chan 20,000 UK pounds (about 27,000 dollars), “plus daily penalties thereafter.”

“Any attempt to impose or enforce a penalty against 4chan will be resisted in U.S. federal court. American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an email.”

The rather hostile letter goes on to remind Ofcom that UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer was “warned by the White House to cease targeting Americans with UK censorship,” and calls on Washington to “invoke all diplomatic and legal levers available to the United States to protect American companies from extraterritorial censorship mandates.”

While the threats are typical of 4chan’s brand, they are not alone.  On August 18, the X Global Affairs account tweeted that the UK’s Online Safety Act, “while intended to protect users, risks severe infringement on freedom of speech by empowering regulators to mandate broad content removal. Platforms face immense pressure to over-censor legal expression to avoid hefty fines, stifling open discourse and individual liberties worldwide.

“At X, we remain committed to defending our users against such overreach.”

Who gets to define laws for the EU and UK?

The showdown at hand is a major test of EU and UK leaders’ political commitment to upholding their respective online safety laws. In his second term, Donald Trump has demonstrated a penchant for doing whatever he likes, regardless of legality. If the U.S. is able to strong-arm foreign powers into changing their laws to fit the shape of contemporary American democracy, it will be a potent illustration of how Trump sees his dominion as extending over the whole world.

The laws, however, are not proving to be especially popular, especially as pertains to age verification rules. The OSA in particular has caused furor over its age check requirements for Wikipedia, and for overextension into areas beyond porn and “harmful content” to encompass (for instance) political protest. One can imagine a moment in which the UK weighs how far it wants to go to preserve a law that has garnered criticism both at home and abroad.

No government will want to look bullied on the world stage. But the trade pressure offers a potential out. One possible outcome is for laws covering pornography to remain in place, but for social media platforms to win their case on the grounds of First Amendment protections, with the backing of the U.S. government and its tariffs. This would still effectively export the First Amendment to sovereign foreign nations, and be another indicator to Trump that the world is his oyster to sauce and swallow as he pleases.

Article Topics

Digital Services Act  |  EU age verification  |  Online Safety Act  |  UK age verification  |  United States