REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the application of Article 33 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 and the interaction of that Regulation with other legal acts
Date: 2025-11-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: cloud computing, digital single market, digital technology, dissemination of information, provision of services, search engine, service

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.11.2025  COM(2025) 708 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the application of Article 33 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 and the interaction of that Regulation with other legal acts {SWD(2025) 368 final}  
 
 
I. 

Introduction 

Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 
(the “DSA”)1 constitutes a landmark in the European Union’s digital policy framework. Together 
with Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 
2022  (the  “DMA”)2,  they  constitute  the  twin  pillars  of  the  EU’s  digital  rulebook  —  a 
comprehensive framework that governs digital services operating in the European internal market. 
While the DMA ensures fairness and contestability in digital markets, the DSA sets out a horizontal 
and  overarching  framework  to  guarantee  a  safe,  predictable  and  trusted  online  environment  in 
which  the  fundamental  rights  enshrined  in  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European 
Union (the “Charter”) are duly protected. The DSA aims to address the dissemination of illegal 
content online and the societal  risks that the dissemination of disinformation  and other content 
may generate, by empowering recipients and other affected parties and ensuring the meaningful 
accountability of providers of intermediary services, including those that cause societal risks with 
a systemic scope and impact in the Union. 
The  DSA  and  the  governance  of  intermediary  services  across  the  Union  is  firmly  based  on 
transparency,  meaningful  accountability,  and  the  rule  of  law,  with  the  vocation  to  become  the 
cornerstone of platform governance. This report comes at a relatively early but important stage - 
just 18 months after the entry into application of the DSA- in the DSA’s implementation. 

II. 

General evaluation of the DSA 

Pursuant  to Article 91(1), second paragraph,  DSA, the Commission  is required to  evaluate and 
report  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  and  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee, by 17 November 2025, on (a) the application of Article 33 thereof, including the scope 
of providers of intermediary services covered by the obligations set out in Section 5 of Chapter III 
of that Regulation, and (b) the way that the DSA interacts with the legal acts referred to in Article 
2(3) and (4) of that Regulation. 
Therefore, the report shall cover two aspects of the DSA.  

First, the Commission must evaluate the application of Article 33 DSA in practice, including an 
assessment  on  the  procedure  to  designate,  and  terminate  the  designation  of,  very  large  online 
platforms (“VLOPs”) and very large online search engines (“VLOSEs”) based on the number of 
average monthly active recipients in the Union and the scope of providers of intermediary services 
to which the reinforced obligations contained in Section 5 of Chapter III of the DSA are applicable. 
This aspect of the report responds to the co-legislators' willingness to include a short-term review 
clause to allow for adaptations, if necessary, of the threshold for designating VLOPs and VLOSEs. 

1 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market 
for Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act), OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1, ELI: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj. 
2 Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending 
Directives  (EU)  2019/1937  and  (EU)  2020/1828  (Digital  Markets  Act),  OJ  L  265,  12.10.2022,  p.1  ELI: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1925/oj.  

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Second, the Commission is required to evaluate the horizontal scope of the DSA, reflecting on and 
clarifying its practical interplay with existing sector-specific acts and national laws where those 
acts specify or complement the DSA. This applies in particular to the laws identified in Article 
2(3)  and  (4)  DSA  due  to  their  connection  with  the  scope  and  objectives  of  the  DSA,  and  the 
relevance  of  ensuring  a  complementary  Union  legal  framework  that  effectively  ensures  a  safe 
online  environment.  Indeed,  by  laying  down  fully  harmonised  and  horizontal  regulatory 
framework which exhaustively regulates the provision of intermediary services across the Union, 
the DSA inevitably interacts  with  existing  sectoral  legislation and with  new initiatives adopted 
since  its  adoption.  Therefore,  the  Report  serves  to  assess  the  early  stages  of  the  DSA’s 
implementation  and  enforcement  actions  and  to  ensure  coherence,  legal  certainty,  and  the 
continued effectiveness of the Union’s digital acquis.  

By  means  of  this  Report,  the  Commission  transmits  its  assessment  on  the  aforementioned 
questions  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  and  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee (the “Report”). Together with its vigorous enforcement actions vis-à-vis providers of 
VLOPs and VLOSEs, this report also demonstrates the Commission’s determination to make the 
DSA work in practice.3 

The Commission stresses that this Report is not intended to reopen or reconsider the DSA, which 
remains  a  central  pillar  of  the  Union’s  digital  governance  architecture.  Rather,  the  Report 
contributes to identifying areas where further reflection may be warranted in the context of the 
Commission’s  simplification  agenda.  It  is  intended  to  inform  the  forthcoming  evaluations  and 
reviews of several instruments, such as the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD),4 and 
the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market,5 as well as forthcoming proposals under 
the consumer acquis as part of the announced Digital Fairness Act, all scheduled for 2026. 

The Report is also a useful input to the comprehensive Fitness Check of the Union digital acquis 
which  will  follow  the  Digital  Omnibus  package.  The  Digital  Fitness  Check  will  evaluate  the 
overall coherence and cumulative impact of the EU digital acquis to identify further simplification 
opportunities. 

2.1.  Report  on  the  implementation  of Article  33  DSA,  including  the scope  of  providers  of 
intermediary services covered by the obligations set out in Section 5 of Chapter III of the 
DSA 

The DSA introduces a novel asymmetric system by taking a tiered approach to the regulation of 
intermediary services. With its most basic obligations applying to all providers of intermediary 
services, other obligations applying to hosting services providers and additional ones applying to 

3 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/dsa-enforcement. 
4 Directive 2010/13/EU of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or 
administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media 
Services Directive), as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/1808. 
5 Directive (EU) 2019/790 of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (Copyright in 
the Digital Single Market Directive). 

2 

 
 
 
providers of online platforms and online marketplaces, a set of enhanced due diligence obligations 
exclusively apply to providers of VLOPs and VLOSEs. 

Given the novelty of this asymmetric approach, during the negotiations towards the adoption of 
the DSA, the co-legislators considered it necessary to evaluate, shortly after the entry into force 
and full application of the DSA, whether the threshold established in Article 33(1) thereof captures 
the relevant services giving rise to systemic risks.  

The threshold laid down in Article 33(1) DSA aims at capturing the online platforms and online 
search engines that, due to their reach, have a systemic impact on recipients across the Union and 
at  imposing  on  the  providers  of  such  services  a  set  of  reinforced  due  diligence  obligations 
contained in Section 5, Chapter III, DSA.  

Recital 76 DSA explains that providers of VLOPs and VLOSEs should bear the highest standard 
of due diligence obligations, due to the reach of their services. In particular, it clarifies that VLOPs 
and  VLOSEs  cause  societal  risks  different  in  scope  and  impact  from  those  caused  by  smaller 
platforms, amounting to a larger societal impact in the Union and giving rise to systemic risks. 
Such significant reach is considered to exist where the number of those services’ average monthly 
active recipients (“AMARs”) in the Union exceeds an operational threshold set at 45 million, that 
is, a number equivalent to 10 % of the Union population which shall be kept up to date. Pursuant 
to Article 33(2) DSA, the Commission is indeed required to adjust that threshold, by means of a 
delegated act, where the Union’s population increases or decreases at least by 5% in relation to its 
population in 2020 by means of a delegated act. However, according to the latest data available 
from  Eurostat,  the  Union  population  has  only  increased  by  2,7  million,  which  is  far  from  that 
percentage.6 

Recital  137  DSA  also  clarifies  that,  given  the  significant  reach  of VLOPs  and VLOSEs  in  the 
Union,  their  failure  to  comply  with  the  specific  obligations  applicable  to  them  may  affect  a 
substantial  number of  recipients  of the services  across different  Member States and may cause 
large societal harms, while such failures may also be particularly complex to identify and address.  

To  identify  such  services, Article  24(2)  DSA  lays  down  a  transparency  reporting  obligation  on 
providers of online platforms and of online search engines to make publicly available in the online 
interface of their services, as of 17 February 2023 and every six months thereafter, information on 
the number of AMARs of that service. Article 24(3) DSA empowers the Commission and national 
competent authorities to request that information or additional information on the calculation of 
the  number  of AMARs.Since  the  start  of  application  of  those  provisions,  and  until  the  date  of 
publication  of  this  Report,  the  Commission  has  adopted,  pursuant  to  Article  33(4)  DSA,  23 
decisions  designating  online  platforms  as  VLOPs,  and  2  decisions  designating  online  search 
engines as VLOSEs. The Commission, in accordance with Article 33(5) DSA, has also adopted 
one decision terminating the designation of a VLOP7.  

6 See: [demo_pjan] Population on 1 January by age and sex [last checked on 24 October 2025]. 
7  All  information  regarding  the  designations  and  further  enforcement  actions  can  be  found  in  https://digital-
strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/list-designated-vlops-and-vloses.  

3 

 
 
 
A first batch of 19 designations was adopted in April 2023, only seven months after the publication 
of the DSA  in  the  Official Journal,  on the basis  of the user numbers  published by the  relevant 
providers  in  accordance  with  Article  24(2)  DSA.  Subsequently,  in  December  2023,  the 
Commission  designated  three  online  platforms  (in  particular,  online  platforms  disseminating 
pornographic content) as VLOPs and, lastly, in April 2024, it designated one more pornographic 
online platform and two fast-growing online marketplaces as VLOPs, equally pursuant to Article 
33(4) DSA. 

To give a sense of the rapid pace of evolution in this area, the Commission notes that, when the 
DSA  was  adopted,  neither  Temu  nor  Shein  offered  intermediary  services  in  the  Union.  The 
provider  of Temu  only  started  operating  its  online  marketplace  service  (i.e.  an  online  platform 
allowing consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders within the meaning of the DSA) 
in  the  Union  in April  2023  and,  by  October  2024,  six  months  after  designation  based  on  the 
information  available  to  the  Commission  at  the  time,  the  provider  of  that  service  reported 
approximately  93.7  million  average  monthly  active  users  in  the  Union.  In  turn,  Shein  which 
initially acted as a retailer operating in several Member States, started providing an intermediary 
service  allowing  third  party  traders  to  offer  goods  for  sale  to  consumers  (i.e.  offering  a  hybrid 
service) in the Union in June 2023. In February 2024, the provider of Shein reported 108 million 
average  monthly  active  recipients  in  the  Union,  and  it  was  designated  two  months  later.  The 
designation  of  Shein  and Temu  in  their  early  development  in  the  Union market  shows  that  the 
threshold is exclusively based on reach and the ability to pose societal risks acquiring a systemic 
dimension, and the process allows the fast and effective designation of services posing systemic 
risks in the Union.  

In addition, the fact that the threshold is applicable to any intermediary service falling within the 
definition of “online platform” or “online search engine”, within the meaning of Articles 3(i) and 
(j) DSA respectively, allows to adapt the designation of VLOPs and VLOSEs to a fast-changing 
online  environment.  In  this  sense,  not  only  has  the  number  of  designation  decisions  adopted 
exceeded the estimations made in the impact assessment in terms of number of designated entities,8 
but  the  categories  of  services  and  functionalities  offered  through  online  platforms  and  online 
search  engines  captured  by  the  threshold  laid  down  in  Article  33(1)  has  also  met  what  was 
originally foreseen. Indeed, the designated VLOPs and VLOSEs cover a wide range of categories 
of  intermediary  services9  including  social  media,  marketplaces,  adult-content  platforms,  app 
stores, and search engines.  

The present Report concludes that, up until now, the categorisation of intermediary services into 
online platforms and online search engines in the DSA has met its original purpose and is well 
calibrated to the objectives of the DSA.  

As regards the future challenges that the Commission is facing in the designation of VLOPs and 
VLOSEs,  intermediary  services  are  evolving  towards  the  provision  of  services  which  often 
combine different functionalities falling within distinct legal definitions, the two legal categories 

8 Impact Assessment of the DSA, part 1, page 27, and part 2, Annex 4. 
9 More than originally foreseen in the Impact Assessment of the DSA, part 2, page 64. 

4 

 
 
 
of  online  platform  and  online  search  engine  are  becoming  more  and  more  intertwined. 
Additionally, some functionalities that fall under these legal categories are often combined with 
other  functionalities  beyond  the  scope  of  these  categories,  for  example,  because  they  are 
interpersonal communication services10  or because they  do not  intermediate content  from  third 
parties.  For  example,  this  is  the  case  of  Zalando  which  is  a  designated VLOP  where  products 
marketed directly by the provider of that service are displayed alongside products marketed by 
third-party sellers. In this case, the designation decision was subject to an action for annulment 
before the General Court, which delivered its judgement in Case T-348/23, Zalando v Commission, 
on 3 September 2025, confirming such designation.11  

Furthermore, the new business models based on artificial intelligence (‘AI’) systems may also be 
considered to provide intermediary services  within the meaning of the DSA, including through 
online platforms or online search engines as defined in Article 3(i) and (j) DSA. If the Commission 
finds AI systems to fall within the definition of an online platforms or online search engines, such 
services will also be subject to the most stringent obligations under the DSA once they reach the 
set threshold. 

The evolution of the features offered requires that the scope of the designated VLOPs and VLOSEs 
is sufficiently broad to take account of these technological and market realities. Given that Article 
34(1) DSA establishes that providers of VLOPs and VLOSEs shall conduct the risks assessments 
referred to in that Article, among others, “prior to deploying functionalities that are likely to have 
a critical impact on the risks identified pursuant to this Article”, the Commission stresses how 
crucial it is, for the purposes of designating VLOPs and VLOSEs, to take account of the evolutive 
nature of the such functionalities that may impact the provision of those services. In this regard, 
the Commission also stresses the relevance of other obligations on providers of online platforms 
and online search engines contained in the DSA for the purposes of enforcing effectively Article 
33  DSA,  including  the  transparency  reporting  obligations  set  out  in  Article  24  DSA  and  the 
mandatory performance of risk assessment reports before the launch of new functionalities under 
Article 34(1) DSA. 

As a result of the above, the Commission concludes that the existing definitions of the categories 
of online intermediary services to which the DSA applies are able to capture the fast technological 
evolution of digital services However, in view of the evolution of technology in the digital world 
and  in  the  provision  of  online  services,  and  the  potentially  far  reaching  effects  of  market 
developments, including due to the advance of generative AI solutions, this conclusion may have 
to be revisited at the time of the Commission evaluation of the DSA pursuant to Article 91(2) DSA, 
due by 17 November 2027.  

The present Report concludes that the threshold determined in the DSA to be subject to the most 
stringent obligations, i.e. having more than 45 million average monthly active recipients of the 
service, has met its original purpose and is well calibrated to capture those services that may cause 
systemic societal harms. This Report, therefore, confirms the adequacy of this threshold.  

10 Within the meaning of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 
2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p. 36). 
11 ECLI:EU:T:2025:821. 

5 

 
 
 
2.2. Report on the way that the DSA interacts with other legal acts, in particular the acts 
referred to in Article 2(3) and (4) 

The  DSA  sets  a  horizontal  framework  to  ensure  a  safe,  predictable  and  trustworthy  online 
environment,  including  by  harmonising  rules  on  specific  due  diligence  obligations  tailored  to 
certain specific categories of providers of intermediary services. However, the DSA is “content 
agnostic”:  it  does  not  define  what  should  be  considered  illegal  or  harmful  content,  it  only 
establishes procedural obligations and safeguards where such content appears online. Therefore, 
the DSA, by definition, needs to be complemented by other instruments of Union law or national 
law in compliance with Union law. In addition, the DSA coexists with sector-specific rules that 
tackle specific issues and may in such contexts be also applicable to intermediary services. 

In order to comply with the mandate pursuant to Article 91(1) DSA, the Commission has identified 
and  analysed  54  acts  of  Union  law  that,  in  one  way  or  another,  interact  with  the  DSA.  This 
includes,  as  mandated  by Article  91(1)  DSA  the  legal  acts  listed  in Article  2(3)  (i.e.  Directive 
2000/31/EC) and in Article 2(4) DSA12 but it is not limited to them. Thus, the legal acts that have 
been assessed for the purposes of Article 91(1)(b) DSA cover various sectors such as e-commerce 
and digital markets, digital, product safety, environment, data protection and privacy, consumer 
policy, audiovisual, media and intellectual property, or democracy, security and justice. 

In  the  majority  of  cases,  the  DSA  interacts  in  a  complementary  manner  with  other  EU 
instruments, with the DSA often referencing or building upon existing frameworks, serving as a 
baseline  for  sectoral  rules,  or  operating  in  parallel  to  address  related  or  similar  regulatory 
objectives but with a different scope, focus or audience. Where there is an overlap, in general the 
adopted rules establish “conflict of laws” rules to determine which one applies in which situations. 
As a result, these links are mutually reinforcing and contribute to a coherent, comprehensive, and 
integrated regulatory framework for digital services in the EU.  

As part of this complementary legal framework, many instruments are considered to “plug-into” 
the DSA, thus resulting in a necessary addition, for instance by establishing what is considered 
illegal content. 

Additionally, certain obligations within the DSA are cross-referred to on numerous occasions by 
other legal acts. In particular, the trader traceability requirements set out in Article 30 DSA and the 
compliance by design obligations provided for in Article 31 DSA, which are more prescriptive 
than previous frameworks, are frequently cross-referred to by new sectoral instruments like the 

12 “Directive 2010/13/EU; Union law on copyright and related rights; Regulation (EU) 2021/784; Regulation (EU) 
2019/1148; Regulation (EU) 2019/1150; Union law on consumer protection and product safety, including Regulations 
(EU) 2017/2394 and (EU) 2019/1020 and Directives 2001/95/EC and 2013/11/EU; Union law on the protection of 
personal data, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC; Union law in the field of judicial 
cooperation in civil matters, in particular Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 or any Union legal act laying down the rules 
on law applicable to contractual and non-contractual obligations; Union law in the field of judicial cooperation in 
criminal matters, in particular a Regulation on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence 
in criminal matters; a Directive laying down harmonised rules on the  appointment of legal representatives for the 
purpose of gathering evidence in criminal proceedings.” 

6 

 
 
 
 
Batteries  Regulation13,  Short  Term  Rental  Regulation14,  and  the  General  Product  Safety 
Regulation15,  thereby  supplementing  via  sectoral  rules,  to  address  particular  risks  or  market 
characteristics, the general obligations established under the DSA. 

In a reduced number of instances it has been found that the DSA rules apply in parallel to other 
similarly  crafted  Union  law  provisions,  giving  raise  to  potential  legal  uncertainty  or  undue 
compliance burdens. These overlaps focus mainly on design-based and transparency obligations, 
highlighting the general call, in Union law, for due diligence obligations by online platforms. In 
those  areas,  which  are  further  specified  below,  the  relationship  between  the  DSA  and  sector-
specific legislation requires careful analysis to ensure legal clarity and coherent enforcement.  

•  Transparency  of  terms  and  conditions  and  of  ranking  parameters  of  recommender 
systems is mandated in the DSA and also in several other instruments, such as the Platform-
to-Business Regulation16, the Consumer Rights Directive17, the Unfair Commercial Practices 
Directive18 and the Political Advertising Regulation19, albeit applying to a narrower or broader 
set  of  providers.  This  multiplicity  of  rules  may  increase  compliance  burdens  by  requiring 
providers to disclose similar information multiple times, but in different formats and locations.  

• 

Instruments  such  as  the  Terrorist  Content  Regulation20  and  the  Platform-to-Business 
Regulation impose a specific transparency reporting obligation, with different timelines to 
those of the DSA, but for partially the same content. As a result, providers must prepare several 
reports on overlapping subject matter, but in different formats and on different timelines. In 
practice, this duplication may lead to higher compliance costs and the risk of inconsistent data 
publication, as the same removals may be reported differently under each regime. 

•  Several instruments, in addition to the DSA, lay down content moderation obligations, for 
instance relating to complaint handling mechanisms and user redress options. While the 
substantive objectives are aligned, the frameworks sometimes impose parallel mechanisms that 
apply simultaneously, resulting in procedural duplication rather than conflicting obligations. 
This has been identified in the case of the Platform-to-Business Regulation, the Audiovisual 
Media Services Directive21, the Directive on Copyright Directive in the Digital Single Market 

13  Regulation  (EU)  2023/1542  of  12  July  2023  concerning  batteries  and  waste  batteries,  repealing  Directive 
2006/66/EC and Regulation (EU) No 2019/1020 (Batteries Regulation).  
14 Regulation (EU) 2024/1028 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on data collection and 
sharing relating to short-term accommodation rental services and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 
15 Regulation (EU) 2023/988 of 10 May 2023 on general product safety (General Product Safety Regulation). 
16 Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online 
intermediation services (Platform-to-Business Regulation). 
17 Directive 2011/83/EU of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights (Consumer Rights Directive). 
18  Directive  2005/29/EC  of  11  May  2005  concerning  unfair  business-to-consumer  commercial  practices  (Unfair 
Commercial Practices Directive). 
19 Regulation (EU) 2024/900 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2024 on the transparency 
and targeting of political advertising. 
20 Regulation (EU) 2021/784 of 29 April 2021 on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online (Terrorist 
Content Online Regulation). 
21 Directive 2010/13/EU of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or 
administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media 
Services Directive), as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/1808. 

7 

 
 
 
22, or consumer law. These complaint mechanisms also give rise to additional duties to inform 
users. There  are  also  different  obligations  to  put  in  place  a  notice-and-action  mechanism 
(Audiovisual Media Services Directive, and also the Directive on Copyright Directive in the 
Digital Single Market, lay down rules for a specific notice-and-action procedure), and similar 
obligations  on  the  provision  of  a  clear  statement  of  reasons  to  inform  about  the  content 
moderation decision taken (AVMSD, Directive on Copyright Directive in the Digital Single 
Market, and Political Advertising Regulation). 

•  The  prohibition  of  manipulative  or  deceptive  design,  often  referred  to  as  dark  patterns,  is 
addressed across several legal frameworks. These rules share the same objective, but differ in 
scope  and  enforcement,  resulting  in  a  complex  regulatory  framework  (Unfair  Commercial 
Practices Directive, Artificial Intelligence Act23, GDPR24 and Digital Markets Act).  

Furthermore, the complexity of the digital legislative framework is intensified by three particular 
factors: 

•  Since  the  adoption  of  the  DSA,  several  Member  States  have  adopted  further  national  laws 
including  obligations  on  providers  of  online  platforms.  However,  the  DSA  is  a  full 
harmonisation  instrument  and  clarifies  that  Member  States  should  not  adopt  or  maintain 
additional national requirements relating to the matters falling within the scope of the DSA, 
since  this  would  affect  the  direct  and  uniform  application  of  the  fully  harmonised  rules 
applicable to providers of intermediary services in accordance with the objectives of the DSA 
(recital 9). In this context, the Commission remains vigilant on the national draft laws notified 
pursuant to Directive (EU) 2015/1535 to ensure that online intermediaries are not subject to 
additional regulatory barriers within the Single Market.  

•  Different  legislations  approach  differently  small  and  micro-sized  enterprises.  The  DSA 
excludes providers of online platforms that qualify as micro or small enterprises  within the 
meaning  of  Recommendation  2003/361/EC,  other  than  those  whose  services  have  been 
designated as VLOPs, micro and small enterprises from the obligations applicable to providers 
of online platforms.25 However, other instruments impose comparable obligations on providers 
of  intermediary  services  which  qualify  as  small  or  micro-sized  companies.  For  instance, 
while the obligation to ensure a high level of privacy, security and safety for minors on online 
platforms  accessible  to  minors  is  not  applicable  to  providers  qualifying  as  micro  or  small 
enterprises (as defined above) under the DSA, similar rules apply by virtue of the AVMSD to 
small  and  micro  video  sharing  platforms.  The  Terrorist  Content  Regulation  imposes 
transparency reporting obligations to the providers of online platforms of all sizes, while small 
and micro-sized companies are exempted from the same obligations in the DSA, and the Short-

22 Directive (EU) 2019/790 of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (Copyright 
in the Digital Single Market Directive). 
23  Regulation  (EU)  2024/1689  of  13  June  2024  laying  down  harmonised  rules  on  artificial  intelligence  (Artificial 
Intelligence Act). 
24 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of 
personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation). 
25 Pursuant to Articles 15(2), 19 and 29 DSA. 

8 

 
 
 
Term Rental Regulation extends to marketplaces of all sizes some of the DSA provisions -that 
under DSA do not apply to for small and micro-enterprises. 

•  The  approach  to  enforcement  diverges  across  legislation  as  the  identified  instruments  have 
different  enforcement  frameworks,  enhancing  this  fragmentation:  for  example,  while 
enforcement  of  the  DSA  is  governed  by  the  country-of-origin  principle,  in  as  much  as  the 
Member States  in  which the main establishment of the provider of intermediary services is 
located is exclusively competent for the enforcement and supervision of the DSA, except for 
providers of VLOPs and VLOSEs the enforcement of product-related legislation is governed 
by  the  country-of-destination  principle.  As  a  consequence,  enforcement  of  the  DSA  by 
competent  authorities  of  the  provider’s  (or  its  EU  legal  representative’s)  Member  State  of 
establishment - or the Commission - can coincide with enforcement of the other instruments 
by authorities established in the Member State to which the relevant conduct is directed. . This 
creates a risk of parallel proceedings for the same practices, depending on the applicable legal 
framework.  

Finally, the legal framework is evolving continuously, where more instruments, tabled by the 
Commission, are under negotiation and with an expected adoption in the coming months that could 
have a relevant impact on the DSA26. It is important that the co-legislators remain vigilant to ensure 
consistency  with  the  horizontal  rules  and  avoid  unnecessary  overlaps  and  fragmentation  of  the 
digital rulebook. The Commission remains committed to  contribute to a legal environment that 
stimulates business creation and growth and that protects and empowers people in the simplest, 
fastest and most effective way possible27. 

The upcoming evaluation of covered instruments, such as the AVMSD, the Directive on Copyright 
in the Digital Single Market, the Terrorist Content Regulation, the Market Surveillance Regulation, 
as well as the preparation of the forthcoming Digital Fairness Act following the Digital Fairness 
Fitness Check of consumer legislation, will be informed by this Report.  

III. 

Stakeholder input and evidence basis 

This  Report is  based on  the Commission's experience and on feedback  received  from  Member 
States, industry, professional and consumer associations, and other interested parties, as well as on 
an externally contracted report. 

26 COM(2023) 366 (Proposal for a Directive on payment services and electronic money services in the Internal Market 
(PSD3); COM(2023) 367 (Proposal for a Regulation on payment services in the internal market (Payment Services 
Regulation — PSR); COM(2023) 258 (Proposal for a Regulation establishing the EU Customs Code and the European 
Union Customs Authority (customs reform); COM(2023) 769 (Proposal for a Regulation on the welfare of cats and 
dogs  and  their  traceability);  COM(2023)  420  (Proposal  for  a  Directive  amending  Directive  2008/98/EC  on  waste 
(Waste Framework Directive revision — textiles & food waste); COM(2023) 462 (Proposal for a Regulation on the 
safety of toys (Toy Safety Regulation — recast)). 
27 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions “A simpler and faster Europe: Communication on implementation and 
simplification”, COM/2025/47 final. 

9 

 
 
 
 
The  Commission  launched  three  specific  surveys,  targeting  civil  society  organisations,  Digital 
Services  Coordinators  and  other  national  authorities,  and  providers  of  intermediary  services, 
including of VLOPs and of VLOSEs, gathering 97 responses in total. In particular, the participation 
of regulators and competent authorities responsible for the enforcement of sectoral legislation is 
noteworthy. Besides, a core part of the analysis relies on legal analysis, not least in light of the 
coherence of interpretations in case law produced by the General Court and the Court of Justice of 
the European Union.  

A complete analysis of the surveys is included in Annex IV of the accompanying Staff Working 
Document. 

The surveys highlight a broad consensus on the need for clarity, coherence, and coordination 
within the Union’s digital regulatory landscape. While the DSA represents a major step forward, 
its  interaction  with  other  instruments  remains  complex.  To  ensure  effective  enforcement, 
protection  of  users,  and  a  level  playing  field  for  businesses,  stakeholders  call  for  streamlined 
guidance,  better  institutional  cooperation,  and  practical  tools  that  make  the  regulatory 
framework more accessible and predictable. 

• 

In terms of awareness and user understanding, all stakeholder groups agree that there is a 
limited awareness among users of the EU laws protecting them online. 

•  As regards potential overlaps and conflicts between Union legal acts, consulted stakeholders 
commonly agree on the  complex interplay between the DSA and other  Union legal acts 
(most frequently cited overlaps involve the GDPR, Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, 
Consumer  Rights  Directive28,  AVMSD,  the  Platform-to-Business  Regulation  or  the 
Artificial Intelligence Act) and ambiguities particularly affect areas such as dark patterns, 
data  processing,  recommender  systems,  product  safety,  and  content  moderation.  Both 
civil society organisations and authorities emphasise the need for clear guidance on which 
regulation  applies 
inconsistent 
enforcement,  and  unclear  prioritisation  among  rules  are  the  most  quoted  challenges  in  this 
regard. 

in  specific  situations.  Fragmented 

legal  obligations, 

•  As regards institutional coordination and enforcement, most authorities rely on informal 
cooperation  and  internal  legal  analysis  to  address  overlapping  regulatory  issues,  though 
conflicts  of  competence  remain  rare. There  is  broad  consensus  on  the  need  for  stronger 
inter-authority coordination, joint guidance, and possibly  a “one-stop shop” mechanism 
for cross-border enforcement. Providers of VLOPs and of VLOSEs, in particular, advocate 
for harmonised enforcement and clearer contact points to reduce administrative complexity 
and legal uncertainty.  

•  Representatives of online intermediary services report significant compliance costs linked to 
overlapping obligations, consuming between 15–30% of internal legal and IT resources. The 
proliferation of duplicative rules is viewed as a structural barrier to innovation, especially 
for smaller European companies. Respondents call for simplification, proportionality, and 

28 Directive 2011/83/EU of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights (Consumer Rights Directive). 

10 

 
 
 
clearer interpretative guidance to improve legal certainty and reduce unnecessary burdens. 
VLOPSEs consider that the DSA’s perceived relevance will drop in the future as AI and data 
regulation gain importance. 

•  The common priority across all groups is clearer, more coherent, and better-communicated EU 

digital regulation, supported by practical guidance and cooperation mechanisms. 

Furthermore, the European Board for Digital Services (the “Board”) established pursuant to Article 
61 of the DSA has played an important role, achieving its objective of contributing to the consistent 
application  of  the  DSA  and  coordinating  the  analysis  of  the  Commission  and  Digital  Services 
Coordinators and other competent authorities on emerging issues across the internal market with 
regard to online intermediary matters. The interaction between the DSA and other legal instruments 
has also been discussed in several meetings of relevant Working Groups of the Board. Finally, this 
analysis also relies on the information provided by Member States in the framework of the Digital 
Services Expert Group, whose mission is to provide a forum  for cooperation between Member 
States’ bodies and the Commission on information society services issues. 

IV.  Conclusion 

This Report shows that the DSA is, overall, highly complementary to other Union legal acts – in 
the  majority  of  cases,  the  DSA  and  other  Union  legal  acts  interplay  in  ways  that  are  mutually 
reinforcing, with provisions designed to either build on one another or apply in parallel. This is 
reflected in all identified instances of complementary interplay, where the DSA either plugs into 
existing  instruments,  serves  as  a  horizontal  baseline  for  sectoral  rules,  or  establishes  parallel 
obligations that pursue similar objectives with a different scope or focus. Such interplay ensures a 
balanced and multifaceted regulatory landscape, where the DSA leverages and reinforces existing 
rules while also providing a horizontal foundation for sectoral adaptation. However, the sum of all 
these rules represents a complex legal environment, with particular challenges.  

In this context: 

•  The  Commission  commits  to  take  into  account  the  findings  of  this  Report  in  its  upcoming 
evaluation (“Fitness Check”) of the digital acquis to identify and thoroughly assess potential 
areas  where  redundant  layers  of  process  or  administration  can  be  removed  without 
compromising the policy objectives.  

•  The Commission  commits  to take into account  the findings  of this  report in  the announced 
review of the AVMSD, and the upcoming Digital Fairness Act, as well as in the reviews and 
evaluations of other legislation applicable in this area. This Report will equally be taken into 
account during the evaluation of the DSA pursuant to Article 91(2) DSA, to be conducted by 
17 November 2027. 

•  The Commission commits to pay close attention to the specific needs and challenges of small 
and medium enterprises when complying with the digital acquis. In addition, by 18 February 
2027  and  based  on  Article  91(1)  DSA,  the  Commission  shall  evaluate  and  report  to  the 
European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the 

11 

 
 
 
potential  effect  of  this  Regulation  on  the  development  and  economic  growth  of  small  and 
medium-sized enterprises.  

•  There  is  scope  for  the  Commission  to  promote  stronger  coordination  amongst  different 
regulatory  frameworks,  such  as  through  the  Board,  in  order  to  ensure  consistent 
implementation  and  due  respect  of  the  non  bis  in  idem  principle.  Furthermore,  in  order  to 
remove remaining barriers to a single market for digital services, the Commission will make 
use of its enforcement powers to act against national laws that gold-plate, deviate or contradict 
Union law. 

The findings of this Report, together with its accompanying Staff Working Document, underscore 
the increasing complexity of the European regulatory landscape. The Commission may identify 
via  forthcoming  evaluations  and  the  Digital  Fitness  check  tangible  opportunities  for  further 
improvement, in line with the Commission’s better regulation and simplification agenda. 

The Commission reaffirms its commitment to a regulatory framework for digital services that is 
clear, proportionate and predictable – one that protects and safeguards consumers and business 
users  alike,  while  continuing  to  nurture  its  capacity  of  innovation.  This  guiding  principle  will 
inform all actions taken in the future when evaluating existing legislation or when proposing new 
instruments.  The  Commission  is  committed  also  to  use  its  enforcement  powers  to  remove 
regulatory barriers at  national level, ensuring that Europe’s single market  remains an  attractive 
engine of competitiveness, opportunity, and shared prosperity.  

12