Submission declined on 6 June 2026 by Helpful Raccoon (talk).
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
|  |
Comment: The text should be rewritten from scratch without the use of LLMs. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Out-of-court dispute settlement under the Digital Services Act (ODS) is a redress mechanism created by the European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA), Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, for disputes between users and online platforms concerning certain content moderation decisions. Article 21 DSA entitles recipients of online platform services, including persons or entities that have submitted notices about allegedly illegal content, to select a certified out-of-court dispute settlement body to review disputes relating to decisions covered by Article 20(1) DSA.[1]
ODS bodies are certified by national Digital Services Coordinators and operate as non-judicial, independent review bodies. Their decisions are not binding on the parties, but online platforms are required to engage with the selected certified body in good faith.[2] The mechanism supplements, but does not replace, platform internal complaint-handling systems and the right to bring proceedings before national courts.[1]
Background
editThe Digital Services Act was adopted in 2022 as a directly applicable EU regulation for intermediary services, including hosting services, online platforms, online marketplaces, social media services, app stores and online travel or accommodation platforms.[3] The DSA establishes due-diligence obligations for providers of intermediary services and additional obligations for online platforms, including requirements on statements of reasons, internal complaint handling, transparency and user redress.[1]
Article 21 DSA was introduced to provide users with an external route to challenge moderation decisions without having to bring court proceedings. The European Commission describes certified ODS bodies as an additional opportunity for users to resolve content moderation disputes with online platforms and as a faster and more cost-effective alternative to judicial proceedings, while preserving the right to go to court.[2]
Legal framework
editArticle 21 DSA applies to disputes relating to the categories of platform decisions referred to in Article 20(1) DSA. These include decisions whether or not to remove, disable access to or restrict the visibility of information; decisions whether or not to suspend or terminate the service, in whole or in part; decisions whether or not to suspend or terminate a user's account; and decisions whether or not to suspend, terminate or otherwise restrict the monetisation of information provided by the user.[1] Article 20 also covers decisions taken after receipt of a notice concerning allegedly illegal content.[1]
A user may select any certified ODS body competent for the relevant type of dispute. The selected body need not be established in the user's Member State, provided that its certified area of expertise and languages cover the dispute.[2] The ODS route is available without prejudice to judicial remedies, and Article 21 expressly preserves the possibility of initiating judicial proceedings at any stage.[1]
ODS decisions must be made available to the parties within a reasonable period and no later than 90 calendar days after receipt of the complaint. In highly complex disputes, the certified body may extend that period by up to a further 90 calendar days.[1]
Certification of ODS bodies
editODS bodies are certified by the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State in which the body is established. Certification may be granted for a maximum period of five years and may be renewed.[1] According to Article 21(3) DSA, a body must demonstrate, among other criteria, that it is qualified, impartial and independent, including financially independent, from both platform providers and recipients of the service; has relevant expertise in specific areas of illegal content or in the application and enforcement of platform terms and conditions; remunerates its members independently of the outcome of proceedings; is accessible electronically; can resolve disputes swiftly, and cost-effectively in at least one official language of the EU institutions; and operates under clear, fair and publicly accessible rules of procedure.[1]
The European Commission states that only EU-based organisations can be certified and that a certification is valid across all 27 EU Member States, although it may be limited by subject matter expertise or language coverage.[2] Certified bodies must report annually to the Digital Services Coordinator that certified them, and Digital Services Coordinators must prepare periodic reports on the functioning of the bodies they certified.[1] Certification may be revoked if the body no longer meets the statutory conditions.[1]
Fees and cost allocation
editThe DSA creates an asymmetric fee model. For recipients of the service, dispute settlement must be available free of charge or for a nominal fee. Fees charged by certified ODS bodies to online platform providers must be reasonable and must not exceed the costs incurred by the body.[1] This has been described as a cost-recovery or cost-covering model rather than a profit-based fee model.[4] ODS bodies are therefore by law bound to be non-profit.
If the ODS body decides the dispute in favour of the recipient of the service, the online platform provider must bear all fees charged by the ODS body and reimburse the recipient for other reasonable expenses paid in relation to the dispute settlement.[1] If the body decides in favour of the platform provider, the user is not required to reimburse the provider's fees or expenses unless the ODS body finds that the user manifestly acted in bad faith.[1] Legal commentary has therefore observed that, in practice, ODS bodies typically charge procedural fees to platforms rather than to users, irrespective of the outcome of an individual case.[4]
Certified bodies
editThe European Commission publishes a public list of certified ODS bodies and their areas of expertise, languages, certifying authorities and dates of certification.[2] As of 19 May 2026[update], the Commission's list comprised nine certified bodies.[2]
The first certification date appearing in the Commission's list is 10 July 2024 for RGOAL Limited trading as ADROIT, certified by the Malta Communications Authority.[2]
| Body | Certifying authority | Date of certification |
|---|---|---|
| ADROIT | Malta Communications Authority | 10 July 2024 |
| User Rights | Bundesnetzagentur | 12 August 2024 |
| Online Platform Vitarendező Tanács | Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság | 29 August 2024 |
| Appeals Centre Europe (ACE) | Coimisiún na Meán | 26 September 2024 |
| RTR-GmbH, Fachbereich Medien | KommAustria | 21 November 2024 |
| ADR Center | Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM) | 18 December 2024 |
| ADR Point | Hellenic Telecommunications and Post Commission | 23 June 2025 |
| Central European Appeals Hub | Council for Media Services | 19 August 2025 |
| Platform Control | Bundesnetzagentur | 4 November 2025 |
Implementation and early use
editThe Commission has described ODS as one of the user-redress mechanisms introduced by the DSA, alongside internal complaint handling by platforms.[3] In February 2026, the Commission reported that, in the first half of 2025, ODS bodies had reviewed more than 1,800 disputes concerning content on Facebook, Instagram and TikTok in the EU and that platform decisions were reversed in 52 percent of closed cases.[5]
Early reporting on implementation focused on the first certified bodies and their initial caseloads. In October 2024, Euronews reported that Maltese and German ODS bodies were expected to rule on their first social-media appeal cases.[6]
Commentary and analysis
editLegal and policy commentary has treated Article 21 DSA as a novel form of platform redress. The LSE Media Blog has described Article 21 as a mechanism through which users may challenge platform content-related decisions via an independent expert non-judicial body, while also noting practical questions around the operation of good-faith engagement and the relationship between ODS bodies and platform governance.[7] The influential DSA Observatory has described ODS bodies as a potentially important pillar of the DSA, capable not only of providing individual redress but also of generating data relevant to platform governance and systemic risks.[8]
Academic debate has also identified unresolved issues. Jörg Wimmers argued, while the DSA was still in proposal form, that an out-of-court mechanism for speech-related disputes risked fragmentation, legal uncertainty and inadequate standards for rights-balancing in online speech cases.[9] Later commentary has focused on applicable law and fundamental-rights review. Lorenzo Gradoni and Pietro Ortolani argued that Article 21 raises difficult questions about whether ODS bodies should assess disputes primarily by reference to platform terms of service, contract law, human rights standards, or a combination of these sources.[10] Helena Ruschemeier and João Quintais have argued that certified ODS bodies should apply a structured fundamental-rights review to platform content moderation while recognising that ODS remains non-judicial and does not displace court remedies.[11]
See also
editReferences
edit- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 "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)". EUR-Lex. Publications Office of the European Union. 27 October 2022. Retrieved 29 May 2026.
- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "Out-of-court dispute settlement bodies under the Digital Services Act (DSA)". Shaping Europe's digital future. European Commission. 19 May 2026. Retrieved 29 May 2026.
- 1 2 "The Digital Services Act". Shaping Europe's digital future. European Commission. 18 May 2026. Retrieved 29 May 2026.
- 1 2 "DSA decoded #8: Out-of-court dispute resolution settlement - a new regime". Freshfields Technology Quotient. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. 31 October 2025. Retrieved 29 May 2026.
- ↑ "Two years of Digital Services Act allows 50 million content moderation decisions by platforms to be reversed". Shaping Europe's digital future. European Commission. 17 February 2026. Retrieved 29 May 2026.
- ↑ Retea, Miruna (14 October 2024). "Maltese, German digital services enforcers to rule on first social media complaints this week". Euronews. Retrieved 29 May 2026.
- ↑ Shipp, Jonny; Harrison, Ruairí; Curtis, Aebha (7 October 2024). "Resolving content disputes outside the courtroom using the Digital Services Act". Media@LSE. London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved 29 May 2026.
- ↑ "Practical Considerations for Out-of-Court Dispute Settlement (ODS) under Article 21 of the EU Digital Services Act (DSA)". DSA Observatory. Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam. 8 February 2024. Retrieved 29 May 2026.
- ↑ Wimmers, Jörg (4 February 2022). "The Out-of-court dispute settlement mechanism in the Digital Services Act: A disservice to its own goals". Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law. 12 (5). Retrieved 29 May 2026.
- ↑ Gradoni, Lorenzo; Ortolani, Pietro (3 October 2025). "Applicable Law in Out-of-Court Dispute Settlement: Three Vertigos under Article 21 of the DSA". DSA Observatory. Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam. Retrieved 29 May 2026.
- ↑ Ruschemeier, Helena; Quintais, João (2025). "Fundamental Rights in Out-of-Court Dispute Settlement under the Digital Services Act". Institute for Information Law. University of Amsterdam. Retrieved 29 May 2026.
LLM-generated pages with certain obvious signs of being machine generated may be deleted without notice.
These tools are prone to specific issues that violate our policies:
Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject.
See the advice page on large language models for more information.