US backs Elon Musk's bid to overturn €120m EU fine against X

The United States government has officially intervened in a high-stakes legal dispute between European regulators and Elon Musk, formally asking an EU court for permission to back a challenge against a massive multi-million penalty levied over digital content and verification rules. According to Yahoo News, the US Department of Justice filed an application to join the appeal before the European Union's General Court in Luxembourg, escalating a transatlantic confrontation over tech oversight and regulatory boundaries.

The penalty at the center of the legal battle originated from a December 5, 2025 decision by the European Commission, which found X Internet, X Holdings, and Musk personally liable for breaches of the bloc's Digital Services Act (Hoodline). Regulators imposed a joint and several €120 million fine—amounting to roughly £105 million or US$136 million depending on currency calculations—broken down into specific infractions. As reported by Euractiv and cited across legal summaries, the financial penalty comprised €45 million for deceptive blue checkmark verification practices, €40 million for restricting independent researchers' access to platform data, and €35 million for advertising repository non-compliance. The European Commission stated that allowing users to pay for a verified blue tick without meaningfully verifying account identities "deceives users".

Media additions

This enforcement action marked a historic milestone as the European Commission's first official non-compliance decision under the DSA (Yahoo News). Under the statute, regulators hold statutory authority to levy administrative fines of up to 6% of an entity's total annual worldwide turnover for persistent non-compliance (Hoodline). Because the commission calculated turnover across all corporate entities controlled by Musk, the potential financial exposure vastly exceeded the flat assessment.

Violation Category	Assigned Penalty	Regulatory Basis
Deceptive Blue Checkmarks	€45 million	Digital Services Act Verification Rules
Researcher Data Denial	€40 million	Digital Services Act Transparency Mandates
Advertising Repository Non-Compliance	€35 million	Digital Services Act Advertising Rules

Washington’s intervention reflects profound anger within the US political establishment regarding Brussels' regulatory reach. Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate stated that the commission had "inappropriately attempted" to expand its regulatory authority to reach American companies not present or operating within its jurisdiction (Malaymail).

"We will not tolerate the European Commission engaging in regulatory overreach to try and control American engines of innovation and economic growth."

Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, via Malaymail

The Department of Justice further argued that the US has a clear interest in ensuring that commission decisions adhere to international law regarding territorial jurisdiction and do not prejudice US-headquartered digital services that contribute significantly to the domestic economy (Yahoo News).

Prominent American political figures echoed these sentiments. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio criticized the action on X, writing:

"The European Commission's fine isn't just an attack on X, it's an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments."

Marco Rubio, US Secretary of State, via Yahoo News

The Federal Communications Commission (Yahoo News) also joined in condemning the measures as censorship directed at US firms (Malaymail).

Conversely, European officials stood firmly by their enforcement framework. During a press briefing, European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier announced that the bloc was ready to defend its position in court, asserting that regulators maintain a solid case under the Digital Services Act (Yahoo News). Henna Virkkunen, the regulator's executive vice-president for tech sovereignty, emphasized the necessity of accountability at the time the penalty was issued:

"Deceiving users with blue checkmarks, obscuring information on ads and shutting out researchers have no place online in the EU."

Henna Virkkunen, Executive Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, via Yahoo News

The European Commission formally rejected accusations of targeting specific nationalities, maintaining that its actions protect democratic standards and preserve its status as a global regulatory benchmark (Yahoo News).

Legal maneuvering has unfolded rapidly across European courts. Following the December 2025 decision, X Internet, X Holdings, and Musk personally filed separate appeal petitions at the EU General Court in Luxembourg on February 16, 2026 (Hoodline). Those cases were officially registered under docket numbers T-114/26 for the corporate entities and T-121/26 for Musk individually (Hoodline). Under Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, outside applicants like the United States must establish a direct legal interest in the outcome of litigation before judges will permit formal intervention (Hoodline).

Despite mounting a vigorous legal defense, X has simultaneously pursued compliance measures on the ground. In July, the European Commission accepted a remediation plan submitted by X designed to address identified violations, including expanded researcher access to advertising data subject to independent audits (Malaymail). Furthermore, the platform relabelled its paid checkmarks as "premium" rather than "verified" (Malaymail) to align with transparency demands.

Broader regulatory pressures on Musk's enterprises continue to mount alongside this litigation. The European Union maintains separate inquiries into X, including an investigation into its integrated AI assistant Grok over concerns regarding the generation of unauthorized sexualized images (Yahoo News).