Uncle Sam wants in on Musk's €120M fight with Brussels

The US government wants to join Elon Musk and X's legal challenge to the European Commission's €120 million fine against the social media platform. The Commission issued its first fine under the Digital Services Act (DSA) in December 2025, finding that X had breached transparency rules through its paid blue checkmarks, …

[AtomicDog]

Hahahahaha

They can get to fuck. US Tech Firms (especially Social Media) need the UK and the EU more than we need them, and we don't have to put up with their "1st Amendment" raging MAGA bollocks if they want to do business in our countries.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hahahahaha

I wish it were so, but can you really see the EU authorities holding out against the Yanks? They'll get Trump involved, he'll threaten extra tariffs on French wine or cheese, and the French will insist the EU regulators back down. Just as the French have insisted that sanctions are lifted against a couple of Russian oligarchs in the past few days because French interests ALWAYS beat wider European interests.

[Cruachan]

Re: Hahahahaha

Yes.

For the moment at least, Europe is pretty well aligned against Trump. With Orban gone, Meloni is the last one in power that was very pro-Trump, at least until he started attacking the Pope.

The only people, as usual, getting rich are the lawyers. The can will get kicked down the road on this whilst Trump is still in power, and he'll be unleashing all of his own lawyers at home in November claiming that every election he loses was stolen but all the ones he wins are secure.

Things will change if Le Pen does win the French Presidency though.

[AtomicDog]

Re: Hahahahaha

Yes. Other countries are done being bullied by a gaslighting flip-flopping truth-avoiding grifting administration headed by a man-child who shits his pants and doesn't seem to know what day of the week it is.

NOT standing up to them would be tantamount to political suicide in most European countries these days.

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: Hahahahaha

The US is a declining power, they just don't seem to have realised it. They think of themselves as a much larger and more important country than they are, and have kept themselves that way through force-projection. Trump's disastrous Iran war has severely depleted their capability to do this, and pretty much everything he says or does has massively damaged their soft-power overseas, as well as their domestic economy. They are heading to the position the UK is now in, a former empire having to concede that they are not more important than everyone else, and they need to be respectful if they want cooperation from others. The last throes of this attitude can be seen here in the UK with the disaster of brexit, driven by jingoism and self-superiority, soon to be undone, watch this space.

I'll be down-voted for saying it, but it should be so blatantly self-evident that nobody is superior to anybody else simply because of the borders they happen to be born within. It seems plenty of people are still quite slow on the uptake.

[Michael Strorm]

Re: Hahahahaha

> "They are heading to the position the UK is now in, a former empire having to concede that they are not more important than everyone else"

But the UK itself never really *has* acknowledged nor accepted that.

Brexit, which you mention elsewhere, was predicated upon the transparently deluded idea that the UK held all the cards and the EU would have to come begging to it for a deal.

I don't give the UK the benefit of the doubt that Brexit was the last vestige of that attitude nor that it's finally seen the light. Even if Brexit is partially rolled back, Farage and his attitudes are still popular.

I've long believed that the UK resented the EU not because it was being treated unfairly, but because, despite its relatively good deal, it *was* being fairly treated and expected to behave as a more equal partner than it was historically used to being.

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: Hahahahaha

People may not have acknowledged or accepted it, but they still have to concede it in the face of cold, hard facts. Sure there are plenty of people who refuse to concede it, but it doesn't make their position tenable, it just makes them easily exploitable by the gloabl far-right populist movement and foreign disinformation, which mostly seems to be coming from Russia and America.

[Groo The Wanderer - A Canuck]

Criminal activity is in the eyes of the nation being victimized, the penalties resulting are for them alone to assess, and when you do business in a nation, you and your business are subject to their laws, not yours.

Extradite that useless sack of excrement...

[retiredFool]

No need to extradite. I imagine el musko visits the Berlin factory all the time. Next time, arrest him and detain him until the fine is paid. ANY and I mean ANY pushback from el musko gets him 20 to life.

[MiguelC]

Much unlike what's going on currently in the USA, in EU countries laws are not written ad hominem, and I'd very much like that to continue being so.

[retiredFool]

I imagine the EU has on the books laws about not paying fines to the government that are criminal not civil. At some point when you give the gov the finger about paying a fine, it gets ugly. In the US IRS can and does incarcerate people that refuse to pay taxes that can. In the US we have whackos that somehow believe government runs on magic and taxes don't have to be paid. Just enforce the laws on the books quicker. I "get" that the super rich live by a different set of laws than the rest of us because they have fantastic lawyers. All I'm suggesting is to detain the ass while it plays out instead of letting him skate. Again, easy, I'll bet laws on the books for "flight risk". And if musk isn't the textbook example of a flight risk, I don't know who is.

[Charlie Clark]

Going nowhere fast

There is a certain irony in that European law is now applying the kind of sanctions on foreign companies, that the US has applied for decades.

But the threat of tariffs is pretty empty. Even if the Republicans don't lose control of Congress in the mid-terms, the agreement between the EU and the US has a sunset clause if any new tariffs are applied.

[Aladdin Sane]

Xeet

Pronounced the same way as Clay Davis would.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Xeet

Just call it an Xcretion

[Bebu sa Ware]

"Fining a successful US tech company for being a successful US tech company."

Given the exceeding dubious (in the US, illegal elsewhere) practices in which US companies engage, I am certain that Carr's complaint is a perfectly sound judicial principle.

"X owner Elon Musk described the decision as "crazy" and "insane" in a Xeet,"

[Elongated Muskrat]

Overreach?

"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."

If there's any overeach going on here, it's of US bodies trying to strong-arm US "rights" such as their citizens' freeze-peach rights within US borders into extraterritorial jurisdictions. The EU has rules you have to obey if you want to play in its house, if you don't like it, don't come over to play. "Mummy and Daddy let me draw on the walls at home" doesn't wash.

As it happens, Elon Musk clearly uses his wealth and his platforms to try to project his political opinions and to interfere in other countries' domestic politics all the time. This is clearly evident in how he pops up supporting far-right rallies across the continent, and pushes agitprop and disinformation. He should be considered as a hostile foreign actor and be sanctioned accordingly. If that includes sanctioning the companies he owns, then so be it. It can't come soon enough.

[Sproggit]

Re: Overreach?

"As it happens, Elon Musk clearly uses his wealth and his platforms to try to project his political opinions and to interfere in other countries' domestic politics all the time. "

What really interests me about your observation - and I agree with your point - is that over decades, society has been told that when a single individual pays a vast amount of money to a politician, to get that politician to do what they want, then that is corruption, which is bad. [ See e.g. Susan Collins in the headlines this week].

On the other hand, if a PAC pays vast amount of money to a politician, to get that politician elected and to do what they want, then that is OK, because the First Amendment allows corporations and super-wealthy individuals to conceal what they are doing in order to prevent the general population from triggering an uprising if/when they found out.

Thanks, Chief Justice Roberts.

Elon Musk is estimated to have contributed $250 Million to help get Donald Trump elected. In return he was given control of DOGE and immediately decimated all the Federal agencies that were investigating his companies. Funny old thing - those investigations all seem to have come to a complete halt. Maybe it was because the people running them all got terminated. Wonder how that happened.

I don't know what it would take to get the SCotUS decision that allowed PAC's and "Corporate Donations" to be reversed ... but unless/until that happens, the US government, for one, will always be run for the benefit of the wealthy minority, not the hard-working majority.

[AtomicDog]

Re: Overreach?

Yeah I think many of us outside of the US think that the concept of "PACs" and corporate political donations are blatant corruption as well.

The only thing remotely close to a "PAC" in the UK would be the Trade Unions, and they are funded by their members and exist for other purposes besides pure political lobbying.

Let's face it, no corporation - who have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders - gives money to a political party without expecting more favourable legislation in return. And given corporations don't get a vote, they really shouldn't be allowed to fund politicians.

Which then brings us back to the fact that personal donations should also be limited to a nominal percentage of the median salary to avoid the very richest from having undue influence.

[Sproggit]

Re: Overreach?

"And given corporations don't get a vote, they really shouldn't be allowed to fund politicians."

This.

One million times this.

When the question of political donations from corporations and via obfuscated "PACs" came before the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts pushed through an opinion he has expressed publicly, that when a corporation makes a political donation, it is exercising free speech. He contrives to equate that donation to "the expression of a choice".

But here's the thing. When I go to an ice cream stand and tell the server that I prefer peach melba ice cream to raspberry ripple ice cream, he doesn't give me an ice cream. I have to pay if I want one. In other words, corporate financial donations to political parties via PACs are not "free speech", they are bribes - money paid in expectation of favorable voting in return.

Chief Justice Roberts is an exceptionally smart, learned lawyer - certainly more than able to find or think of "weasel word" arguments to justify positions such as that. But the whole point of a *democracy" is the concept of "one person, one vote".

What we have now is, "One ordinary person, ten bucks worth of vote; one corporation, ten million bucks worth of votes; couple of billionaires, one billion bucks worth of votes."

When the tiniest minority have the biggest voice in the legislature - thanks to PACs and "campaign contributions", democracy is lost.

[that one in the corner]

Re: Overreach?

> And given corporations don't get a vote, they really shouldn't be allowed to fund politicians.

Ah. So the corporations should be allowed to vote, then it'll be ok. After all, they already have legal personhood, so it is pure discrimination that they aren't also allowed to vote.

Of course, the only *fair* way is to let each corporation vote once for every person it employs: one man, one vote and all that. And the voter turnout will improve dramatically*, thus demonstrating that the democracy is working even better than before.

Perhaps one shouldn't say these things in public and risk putting ideas into certain proto-tyrant's head?

* Although that does run the risk of the common voter owning the means of production, which would lead to a lot of exploding heads in the boardroom ("Wadda ya mean, we'eze all commies now?").

[Sproggit]

Re: Overreach?

"Of course, the only *fair* way is to let each corporation vote once for every person it employs: one man, one vote and all that. And the voter turnout will improve dramatically*, thus demonstrating that the democracy is working even better than before."

I don't think this passes a basic sniff test.

If a corporation were entitled to count the vote of an employee once as an employee, then those people working for corporations would in effect get two votes - once in their professional capacity and once in their personal capacity. That immediately and spectacularly undermines the "one person, one vote" principle of democracy - it takes us in the *opposite* direction.

I think the basic premise of your suggestion is flawed because of your reliance on "legal personhood" and the way you extend that point. First, the "legal personhood" model [in the law] defines that an incorporated business is a *single* entity for legal purposes... not a variable number of legal entities based on their number of employees.

Additionally, there are so many practical inhibitors to such a model, even if it were legally permissible, which it is not. For example, what about a person working three part-time jobs for three different corporations. Do they get *three* corporate votes in addition to their own?

But the most compelling argument against your proposal is to point out that the concept of incorporation is used for legal and tax purposes, not "everything". Both the United States and the UK have introduced conscription - a mandatory legal requirement for men women to contribute to a war effort by joining a military service. But there is no legal requirement for a corporation to send employees to fight a war. Instead, corporations are governed by e.g. the Defense Production Act. Or Jury Duty: the law requires that all adult citizens must be available for jury duty when required by the state... but we don't insist the same for corporations.

It's some nice out-of-box thinking, but in this instance I suggest it takes us in the wrong direction... we don't want to distort the vote, which is what it would do.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Overreach?

The only thing remotely close to a "PAC" in the UK would be the Trade Unions

I think that has been Reformed recently.

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: Overreach?

Did all the "think tanks" on Tufton Street pay you to forget about their existence?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US keep trying to rearrange the deck chairs while Europe is planning on a wholesale change away from US tech. They're in for a shock (maybe not realised for a few years, but it's coming, as sure as night follows day). Parts of Germany are already committed. There's a new project to move to NixOS in the Netherlands. Denmark replacing Office 365. Austria too. Italy started to move from US tech in 2015. The EU commission has laid out plans for the European Technological Sovereignty Package. Etc, etc.. there are entire projects and industries spinning up to support this. It's happening, whether they like it or not.

Eurostack is the future. Practice your Linux skills. Oh and expect serious efforts to vendor lock in all new US released OS/Cloud products over the next couple of years (resist at all cost - leave your options open!).

It's themed around Europe and the EU, but this almost certainly branches into the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, South Korea, Japan, and so on. Nobody trusts the US anymore (and for good reason) - especially big tech who have not only enabled the sweeping political change, but actively encouraged it.

p.s. Some pension funds have an app and you can chose with countries/tech they invest in. It might be a good time to reconsider US tech. Plans are afoot - the world is changing!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroStack

[openjunk2]

Sure, I have not seen an EU businesses steering away from US companies, all the big enterprises I work with are all in on Azure/AWS and all use Microsoft products for everything, they love it, they want more, thank god Ai came along and allowed them to be even more dependent.

[Anonymous Coward]

The post you're replying to is quite obviously talking about national policy, government institutions, local authorities, and the EU itself, massive institutions covering millions of people/licences, not Bobs Bacon Van or whatever small time company you deal with.

And if you think companies aren't planning for this eventuality including enterprise level orgs, you really ARE in for in a shock (I can assure you from personal experience that the largest UK companies are considering their options and penciling in options as a contingency at the very least).

[Doctor Syntax]

"if you think companies aren't planning for this"

Even if they're not planning now they're going to have to do so when they realise that they're now out of step with everyone around them.

[VoiceOfTruth]

An attack on American free speech

Note the careful phrasing.

>> overreach against US companies beyond its jurisdiction

If you operate in Europe, you are bound to obey the laws there. No, this is just another example of the attempt by the USA to dominate the world.

[brainwrong]

Block

"The European Commission inappropriately attempted to expand its regulatory authority to reach American companies not present or operating within its jurisdiction,"

Just block them. If they're not present or operating here then how can they be upset?

[Tron]

Re: Block

They don't want to block them, as they want the functionality (including Musk batteries etc), and would be unpopular with many of their citizens if US sites vanished, as there are no EU replacements.

They want the money and the political capital that comes with the theatre of doing something.

A US website isn't 'operating' in the EU, it is accessible from the EU and can be accessed from within the EU by users, a bit like phoning a US radio show from Paris. The EU have the power to block it or accept it. No more.

The irony in terms of overreach is that US control of US produced/run software and services anywhere in the world is exactly the level of overreach that they are complaining about. But they are politicians, so you would expect them to be shameless hypocrites.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Block

They ARE operating in a country if they have offices there, sell advertising space there, and earn money there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Block

Yes, a webpage only published in the US. You are trying to confuse the issue...

[Pete 2]

The law's yours

> an attack on American free speech.

American free speech may be free (unregulated) in America. But fortunately for everybody else in the planet that "freedom" does not extend past its borders. And neither do other USAian¹ bought-and-paid-for regulations.

However, that does not give their corporations the right or ability to run roughshod over the law's of other places. Although few have the balls and resolve to enforce that.

[1] Actually they do since the USA has decided to award itself the power to demand the extradition of anyone in the world who is accused of doing anything they don't like, on the internet. And most other countries have cowardly acceded to this demand. Even though the same extradition is absolutely banned in the other direction.

[Jamie Jones]

Re: The law's yours

America's free speech is a myth. The Trump administration think it means "Freedom for me, but not freedom for you."

Musk etc. think it means Freedom without consequences.

There are 75 court cases which found the Trump government unlawfully went against the first amendment. Now he's banning the press from the Whitehouse.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-vowed-bring-free-speech-back-judges-75-cases-ruled-that-he-has-stifled-it-2026-08-04/

Vance's rants agains the EU are pure hypocritical projection.

[Vincent Ballard]

Piercing the corporate veil

"Piercing the corporate veil" is definitely a Thing in US law, so it's surprising that the Justice Department hasn't heard of it.

[Empire of the Pussycat]

Overreach? Er, Venezuela

<because>

[Jamie Jones]

Re: Overreach? Er, Venezuela

And in a few months, Cuba...

[BebopWeBop]

Re: Overreach? Er, Venezuela

Well, it will be too cold in Greenland and Iceland. They will have to wait for the spring.

[MazeFrame]

Calling "Stasi commissars" after doing the austrian salute is a special level of stupid.

[Excused Boots]

No he was not giving the Austrian salute, he was helpfully pointing out the best orientation for a Starlink connection.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you all look over there you'll be able to watch Starlink satellites burning up, in sync with the amount of hot air I expell making the atmosphere swell".

[Doctor Syntax]

"The European Commission inappropriately attempted to expand its regulatory authority to reach American companies not present or operating within its jurisdiction,"

If they're not operating there they're not going to get regulated there. if they don't want to be regulated there they're free to leave.

[blu3b3rry]

As the US likes to remind everyone upon entering, either when applying via the Visa Waiver Program or other means... U.S. law applies to all those within the country, regardless of their citizenship status or if they are a private individual or a commercial entity.

Naturally they want to have their cake and eat it when other countries expect the same.

[BasicReality]

Good, Europe has some of the stupidest regulations. American companies need to ignore it and the government should fight it.

[AtomicDog]

Nurse, he's out of bed again!

[Jamie Jones]

Regulations are to protect the citizens against overreaching companies.

The Trump administration’s deregulatory actions have led to significant concerns and identified problems across environmental, public health, and labor sectors, according to watchdogs like the Institute for Policy Integrity and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

Environmental and Climate Risks

Increased Pollution: Weakened rules on air and water quality allow for higher industrial emissions and chemical pollutants.

Rollbacked Climate Standards: Revoking scientific frameworks like the EPA's greenhouse gas endangerment findings and easing vehicle emission limits increase greenhouse gases.

Public Health Toll: Policy groups estimate heightened risks for premature mortality, hospital admissions, and child asthma attacks due to worsened air pollution.

Workplace and Labor Protections

Reduced Worker Safety: Re-evaluating or scaling back standards for hazardous substances in high-risk sectors like mining compromises worker safety.

Lower Penalties: Critics state that adjusted oversight limits the government's power to penalize employers when workers suffer injuries or fatalities.

Disproportionate Impact: Labor advocates note that blue-collar and minority workers face the highest exposure to these increased occupational hazards.

Consumer and Corporate Oversight

Weakened Consumer Safeguards: Sidelining bodies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reduces federal oversight of financial and commercial practices.

Reduced Enforcement: Lower enforcement rates and fewer initiated compliance cases by regulatory agencies decrease the deterrent value against corporate violations.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-biggest-federal-regulations-that-have-disappeared-under-trump

https://theweek.com/politics/biggest-deregulation-actions-trump-has-taken

https://policyintegrity.org/tracking-regulatory-rollbacks

[Anonymous Coward]

Good little maga moron. Now shuffle of to the cave

[ecofeco]

LOL!

Wut?

[DS999]

If this drags out past Jan 2029

There will be a new president who will immediately order the DOJ to drop their help in this case. The DOJ should not be helping billionaires in legal fights they can afford on their own.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: If this drags out past Jan 2029

That depends. Can the US electorate see beyond the end of its collective nose?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: If this drags out past Jan 2029

> That depends. Can the US electorate see beyond the end of its collective nose?

No - their arse is in the way.

[9Rune5]

Re: If this drags out past Jan 2029

Indeed. When/if the democrats grab power again, it will absolutely be curtains for free speech. We will return to the days of the pandemic where we couldn't even voice our suspicions about the virus originating in a certain lab. Good times.

[Excused Boots]

Re: If this drags out past Jan 2029

No you absolutely were able to voice your suspicions. Tell me was anyone arrested, imprisoned, or sanctioned for expressing such a view?

Yes it could, theoretically be true but there is absolutely no evidence for it. But even if it were true, then whatever? The fact that the virus existed, and did spread globally, (ie was a pandemic), did kill many, many people - can’t really be argued against.

My issue is with those people defying mask mandates, the wearing of masks did absolutely, absolutely, slow the spread, not stop it, but slow it. The various vaccinations, going from nothing to working in the space of months, rather than years or decades, has to be one of the greatest achievements of the human race working in cooperation against a common enemy. Sharing information, coming up with different routes. Viruses really, really don’t care about your nationality, they are equally effective against an American as an Ethiopian.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: If this drags out past Jan 2029

lmao, good little right wing muppet

[Jamie Jones]

Re: If this drags out past Jan 2029

The biggest attack on free-speech in America, in my lifetime, at least, is happening under this current administration.

The fact you can't see this is scary, and goes to explain how countries can fall into fascism and dictatorships.

You think this administration cares about your free speech? Just wait until you say something they really don't agree with.

Most Americans claim to support freedom of speech, including President Donald Trump who has portrayed himself as an ardent defender of this constitutional right.

However, in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, Trump and members of his administration began to explicitly call for speech restrictions.

This largely unprecedented rhetoric from a sitting president and his allies provides an opportunity to examine competing theories of public opinion: the influence of partisan elites versus the public’s purported commitment to free speech.

In a preregistered survey experiment, we found that exposure to such unusually explicit antispeech rhetoric increased Trump voters’ support for government censorship of outparty media and individuals but prompted backlash among non-Trump voters, increasing their support for protecting outparty speech.

While prior research has established that partisans favor censorship of outparty members, we demonstrate that partisans differentially shifted their censorship attitudes in response to the Trump administration’s new rhetoric, whether or not the source was attributed to Trump and his allies.

These findings highlight the influence of elite rhetoric on public support for even the most foundational—and popular—democratic norm, raising concerns about the resilience of American democracy in the face of explicitly illiberal elites.

More: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2532084123

You're being played. You're a sheep.

Now, before you downvote, try a rebuttal.

[IGotOut]

The classic modern version of successful.

Billions of dollars in debt with no route to profitably. Only held up by the stock market being to scared to admit they've bought into a terrible company.

[9Rune5]

compared the "woke" Commission to "Stasi commissars," combining two rather different authoritarian references.

I can recommend Dr Drew's recent interview with Lindy Li. I'd also point out the obvious: The woke stuff is mostly on the far left (DSA). Stasi was an extension of the German Communist Party. "Rather different" is just wrong on so many levels. As DSA grabs more power, you'll see more Stasi too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice of you to comment. Have you tried not liking brown shirts?

[Jamie Jones]

Tell me, is this "woke stuff" in the room with you right now?

Please tell me specifically what DSA "woke stuff" you disagree with.

Let's see if you are capable of more than just regurgitating right wing grifter talking points.

[KurzweilGeist]

Almost total absence of engagement with the actual US legal argument.

The DOJ is not arguing that X may disregard EU law. It is challenging the Commission’s decision to treat Musk and his wider corporate holdings as a single economic unit for the purpose of calculating and imposing the fine. Most commenters simply ignore or caricature this as a free-speech dispute. That is not what the intervention concerns.

There is almost no engagement with the American position, nor any serious consideration of whether the Commission’s corporate-structure approach is itself expansive. Little is said of the long history of mutual objection to extraterritorial regulation on both sides of the Atlantic. The thread functions less as a debate than as a vehicle for anti-Musk and anti-Trump sentiment.

[harrys]

Sympathy

For all the brits that moved to US

The fundamental different cultures across the pond has been hidden from view for a while, especially in the way business is done

Only now had it all become hideously apparent now

[not_a_goat]

Ideal situation

The ideal situation from my point of view is that the US Supreme Court says 'no, X doesn't have to pay these fines' and the EU bans X and every other Musk company from operating in the EU. I'd love to see that. It might pry some of the 'I am not a Nazi but I don't mind giving Nazis money and associating with Nazis' off of the platform, too. Bonus!