According to Mashable, on Friday, December 13, 2024, the European Commission announced it had fined X a historic $140 million under the Digital Services Act. The fine, the first of its kind, cited deceptive blue checkmark designs, lack of ad transparency, and failure to provide data to researchers. Elon Musk responded to the announcement post on X by simply writing “Bullshit.” Days later, X’s head of product Nikita Bier revealed the company had terminated the European Commission’s advertising account on the platform. Bier accused the EU body of exploiting a flaw in X’s Ad Composer tool to artificially boost the reach of its fine-announcement post, a flaw that has since been patched. The now-banned ad account had reportedly not run a paid ad since 2021.
The Petty War Escalates
Here’s the thing: this is way less about advertising revenue and way more about sending a message. The European Commission’s ad account was basically dormant. So shutting it down is a purely symbolic, and frankly petty, retaliatory strike. It’s Musk’s X saying, “You fined us? Fine. You don’t get to play in our sandbox anymore.” But the accusation of exploiting an “ad-only” feature to boost reach is the spicy part. X’s own algorithm favors video posts, and Bier claims the EU used a composer tool meant for ads to make their fine announcement look like a video, gaming the system. It’s a “you broke our rules” counter-punch to the EU’s “you broke the law” mega-fine. The whole feud is now being fought on the granular level of platform features, not just in legal chambers.
Stakeholder Impact: A Lose-Lose?
So who does this actually affect? For the average user, not much in the short term. The post is still up (even if the embedded tweet appears unavailable), and the fine is still levied. But look at the bigger picture. For regulators, it sets a combative tone. The EU wants to enforce its digital rulebook, the DSA, and the first major defendant is essentially telling them to get lost and cutting off a formal channel of communication. That’s unprecedented. For enterprises and advertisers, it’s another data point in the “volatility” column when considering X. If a major governmental body can have its ad account terminated over a spat, what’s the guarantee for a regular company? It reinforces the idea that platform rules can be applied inconsistently and reactively. Basically, it makes X look like a less stable, more personally-driven environment for serious institutional communication.
A Patched Flaw and Blurred Lines
The technical heart of this is that now-patched Ad Composer flaw. Bier says it was “never abused before,” which is a fascinating claim. Was it an overlooked bug or a designed feature that just hadn’t been weaponized? By patching it immediately after the EU’s use, X is trying to frame the action as exploitation, not clever use. But this blurs the line between “organic” and “paid” reach on the platform, a line that’s been fuzzy since Musk took over and started heavily boosting video and certain user posts. The real question is: how many other users or organizations might have used similar methods without facing termination? The selective enforcement here is what makes it feel less like a principled platform integrity move and more like a targeted retaliation in a very public, very expensive feud.
