EU DSA Second Wave April 2026 — New VLOPs & Ad Rules

Quick Answer

EU activated DSA second enforcement wave April 2026, designating additional platforms as VLOPs and extending advertising transparency obligations. The €120M X fine set the penalty ceiling at 6% of global turnover — advertisers on newly designated platforms face new creative, targeting, and reporting constraints.

Predict ad disapprovals before you submit — try the free Meta Rejection Predictor

EU DSA Second Wave Enforcement April 2026 — New VLOP Designations, Expanded Advertising Transparency Obligations & 6 Percent Turnover Fines

What Changed in the April 2026 Second Wave

The European Commission activated the DSA second enforcement wave in April 2026, expanding Very Large Online Platform designations to cover additional networks, refining advertising transparency obligations based on first wave enforcement learnings, and maintaining an enforcement posture anchored in the December 2025 X decision that imposed a €120 million fine. The second wave is the operationalization of the framework the first wave established — enforcement is now the default posture rather than an aspirational threshold.

Three substantive changes define the second wave. First, additional platforms have been designated as VLOPs under a refined active recipient counting methodology that captures services previously just under the 45 million monthly active user threshold. Second, advertising transparency obligations have been expanded to address repository gaps, targeting disclosure granularity, funding source resolution, and researcher access infrastructure that the first wave highlighted as improvement areas. Third, the penalty framework is now active with material consequences, with the X decision establishing that material penalties under the framework are realistic rather than theoretical.

The European Commission has positioned the DSA as fully operational, with later enforcement extending the framework to additional platforms and sharpening transparency obligations meant to protect EU users and support democratic oversight of digital services (paraphrased; not a verbatim dated Commission briefing).
— AuditSocials Policy Analysis Team

New VLOP Designations and Platform Scope

The second wave designations apply a refined active recipient counting methodology that captures additional user engagement patterns and resolves ambiguity in the first wave approach. Platforms previously just under the 45 million monthly active user threshold now cross into designation under the refined count. The Commission has published the authoritative list on the designated VLOPs and VLOSEs page — advertisers should reference the official publication for definitive status.

Categories of Newly Designated Platforms

Category	Typical Profile	Obligation Impact
Mid-tier social networks	Platforms with 30–50M EU MAU previously under threshold	Full VLOP obligations including repository and risk assessment
Specialized content platforms	Video-first, audio-first, vertical community platforms	Content-format-specific transparency obligations
Regional European platforms	Language or country-specific services	Jurisdictional obligation complexity
E-commerce with social features	Marketplaces with UGC and community functions	Commerce-specific transparency alongside ad repository
Public-messaging platforms	Messaging services with broadcast components	Broadcast-feature-specific obligations

Newly designated platforms have approximately six months from designation announcement to reach full compliance. The Commission has signaled willingness to engage collaboratively during transition while maintaining the compliance endpoint. Platforms demonstrating good faith progress toward compliance face different enforcement posture from platforms that approach transition passively. Advertisers should expect service changes on newly designated platforms including new ad repository interfaces, revised targeting disclosure in campaign setup, and new transparency reporting requirements. For ongoing designation tracking use our Policy Change Tracker.

Expanded Advertising Transparency Obligations

The second wave expansion addresses specific gaps identified during first wave enforcement and codified in the December 2025 X decision. The expansion applies to both originally designated VLOPs and newly designated platforms, creating a unified advertising transparency standard across the designated cohort.

Advertising Repository Requirements

Complete creative: All content variants served in the creative rotation must be included, not only representative samples.
Granular targeting: Targeting dimensions used and audience definitions applied to each ad must be disclosed with sufficient granularity to support research.
Funding chain: Legal entity funding the advertising and the commercial chain through which payment flows must be disclosed, with structures designed to obscure funding source treated as violations.
Delivery metrics: Impression and reach data must be included supporting analysis of audience exposure.
Policy status: Moderation actions taken on the ad including removal, restriction, or labeling must be reflected in the repository record.
Access design: No registration barriers, no access limitations that effectively block research, no design choices that functionally restrict use.
Retention: Minimum one year retention after the ad last ran, with some categories requiring longer retention.

Researcher Access Infrastructure

Vetting framework: Clarified vetting criteria that support legitimate academic research while protecting against misuse.
Data access formats: Structured data access supporting programmatic analysis, not only human-readable interfaces.
Response timelines: Defined response timelines for access requests with accountability for unreasonable delays.
Appeals process: Escalation path for denied access requests including Commission-level review.

Advertisers cannot opt out of repository inclusion. Targeting, funding, and creative that would be problematic to disclose publicly should not be configured in campaigns — repository visibility should be treated as a design constraint in campaign planning. For campaign pre-flight review use the AI Compliance Audit configured for EU DSA compliance.

The X €120 Million Precedent

The December 2025 European Commission decision fining X €120 million for DSA non-compliance established the first substantive enforcement precedent under the framework. The decision addressed three distinct violations and imposed a €120 million fine that fell below the 6 percent of global annual turnover statutory maximum; the Commission did not publish the penalty as a fixed share of X turnover.

Violations Identified

Deceptive blue checkmark design: Historical verification indicator redefined as paid subscription indicator without corresponding user-facing transparency about the semantic change.
Advertising repository gaps: Repository lacked critical information including ad content detail and funding entity identity, with design features that undermined research and oversight purposes.
Researcher access failures: Failure to provide meaningful researcher access to data supporting academic research on platform effects.

Precedent Effects

Penalty magnitude expectation: Serious DSA violations attract penalties at or near the 6 percent turnover maximum.
Priority enforcement areas: Advertising transparency, deceptive design, and researcher access identified as focus areas for subsequent investigations.
Accelerated compliance investment: Visible cross-platform acceleration of DSA compliance infrastructure investment across the original VLOP cohort.
Baseline for new VLOPs: Newly designated platforms face X precedent as baseline compliance expectation.

Pending cases against Meta and TikTok on related issues signal continued enforcement tempo through 2026. For X-specific policy review see the X Ads Policy guide.

Advertiser Compliance Obligations on VLOPs

DSA advertiser obligations operate primarily through the VLOP infrastructure but create substantial indirect obligations for advertisers whose ads reach EU users. Advertisers should audit practice across five obligation categories and build compliance infrastructure proportionate to EU advertising investment.

Creative Transparency

Commercial nature clarity: Creative must not disguise commercial nature through content that appears editorial, user-generated, or otherwise non-commercial.
Advertiser identification: Creative must accurately identify the advertiser, with exceptions limited to brand-building where identification through the branded content suffices.
Content policy alignment: Creative must comply with VLOP content policies that reflect DSA obligation structure including prohibitions on deceptive content and targeting-specific content rules.

Targeting Transparency

Repository alignment: Targeting configured in platform interfaces becomes visible in the repository — targeting that would be problematic to disclose should not be configured.
Sensitive category restrictions: Political advertising, health targeting, and demographic-sensitive categories face stricter targeting disclosure requirements.
Documentation: Advertisers should maintain documentation supporting targeting practice for potential enforcement inquiry response.

Funding Source Transparency

Ultimate funder identification: Platform interfaces must identify the ultimate legal entity funding the advertising, not only intermediaries or agencies.
Chain disclosure: Where advertising flows through intermediaries, the chain must be resolvable to the funding source.
Political funding elevation: Political advertising funding source transparency faces particularly strict requirements.

For comprehensive advertiser DSA compliance review see the EU DSA Compliance Guide and use the Legal Compliance Scan.

DSA Penalty Framework and Calculation

The penalty framework under the DSA combines substantial financial penalties with operational remedies and periodic penalties for continuing non-compliance. Advertisers and platforms should understand the full penalty structure to calibrate compliance investment appropriately rather than focusing only on the headline turnover percentage.

Penalty Components

Component	Ceiling	Application
Standard penalty	6 percent of global annual turnover	Serious or sustained violations
Periodic penalty	5 percent of average daily global turnover per day	Continuing non-compliance following Commission decision
Operational remedies	Proportionate to violation	Compliance infrastructure investment, third-party audits, public reporting
Service restriction	Judicial order in extreme cases	Persistent non-compliance where penalties and remedies fail

Calculation Factors

Nature and gravity: Systemic violations attract higher penalties than isolated issues.
User impact scale: Violations affecting larger user populations attract higher penalties.
Duration: Persistent violations attract higher penalties than promptly remediated issues.
Cooperation: Cooperative platforms receive mitigation consideration during investigation.
Compliance posture: Platforms with strong infrastructure receive mitigation compared with minimal-compliance platforms.
Enforcement history: Platforms with prior violations face higher penalties for subsequent violations.

For penalty risk assessment use the Legal Compliance Scan.

Advertiser Preparation Plan

Advertisers with EU advertising investment should execute a structured preparation program during the second wave transition. The program scope should match EU investment scale — advertisers with material EU revenue exposure warrant substantive compliance infrastructure investment.

Immediate Actions (Month 1)

Platform coverage audit: Identify all VLOP platforms (originally designated and newly designated) where advertising is active in EU markets.
Creative audit: Review creative portfolio for commercial nature clarity, advertiser identification, and content policy alignment.
Targeting audit: Review targeting practice against repository disclosure transparency standard.
Funding structure audit: Confirm funding source identification across advertising intermediaries, agencies, and holding structures.

Medium-Term Build (Months 2–6)

Compliance infrastructure: Internal processes for creative pre-flight review, targeting practice review, and funding disclosure validation.
Documentation discipline: Documentation supporting targeting rationale, funding source identification, and compliance decisions for potential enforcement inquiry response.
Repository monitoring: Process for monitoring the advertiser's own entries in VLOP repositories and identifying issues.
Enforcement response capability: Internal capability to respond to VLOP enforcement inquiries and remediate issues rapidly.

For compliance infrastructure design use the AI Compliance Audit.

DSA Second Wave Compliance Checklist

[ ] Identify all VLOP platforms (original and new) where EU advertising is active
[ ] Audit creative portfolio for commercial nature clarity and advertiser identification
[ ] Audit targeting practice against repository disclosure transparency standard
[ ] Confirm funding source identification across intermediaries and agencies
[ ] Review political advertising, health targeting, and demographic-sensitive campaigns specifically
[ ] Build internal pre-flight compliance review process for EU campaigns
[ ] Maintain documentation supporting targeting and funding decisions
[ ] Monitor own repository entries across VLOP platforms
[ ] Build enforcement response capability for rapid VLOP inquiry handling
[ ] Monitor Commission enforcement actions and precedent development
[ ] Model DSA penalty exposure for enforcement risk assessment

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the DSA second wave and what changed in April 2026?

The DSA second wave refers to the European Commission's expanded enforcement program under the Digital Services Act that took effect in April 2026, building on the first wave that began with Very Large Online Platform and Very Large Online Search Engine designations in April 2023. The second wave advances three substantive changes: additional VLOP designations adding more than a dozen platforms to the regulated cohort, expanded advertising transparency obligations applicable to both the original VLOP cohort and the newly designated platforms, and activation of the enforcement and penalty framework following the December 2025 €120 million fine against X that established the penalty precedent. The additional VLOP designations reflect the Commission's refined methodology for counting active recipients of the service, which captures platforms that had stayed just under the 45 million monthly active user threshold under earlier counting approaches. Several platforms that avoided designation in 2023 have been reclassified, with approximately six months of preparation time following designation announcement. The newly designated platforms must now meet the full set of VLOP obligations including risk assessment, advertising transparency, researcher data access, and algorithmic recommendation transparency. The expanded advertising transparency obligations apply to both originally designated VLOPs and newly designated VLOPs, with requirements refined based on learnings from the first wave enforcement. Advertising repository obligations now require more detailed content disclosure, more granular targeting disclosure, more structured funding source disclosure, and more accessible researcher access infrastructure than the first wave implementations. The enforcement and penalty framework activation follows the December 2025 X decision that established the €120 million fine. Under the DSA the statutory maximum is 6 percent of global annual turnover; the Commission did not characterise the X penalty as a fixed share of turnover, and any percentage estimate based on X's private revenue is a third-party inference rather than an official figure. The precedent signals that subsequent violations face substantial penalty exposure, with enforcement posture characterized as material rather than symbolic. Platforms and advertisers should plan for a more aggressive enforcement environment in 2026 compared with the more measured posture during the first wave. For DSA compliance framework review, see our EU DSA Compliance Guide.

Which platforms are newly designated VLOPs in the April 2026 second wave?

The European Commission has expanded the VLOP list in April 2026 through designations based on refined active recipient counting methodology, adding both mid-tier US-headquartered networks and European-specific services to the regulated cohort. The Commission publishes the authoritative list on the designated VLOPs and VLOSEs page of the European Commission digital strategy website, which advertisers should reference for definitive designation status. Newly designated platforms span multiple categories. Mid-tier social networks previously just under the 45 million monthly active user threshold under earlier counting methodology now qualify under the refined counting approach that captures additional user engagement patterns. These platforms face full VLOP obligations including risk assessment and advertising transparency. Specialized social platforms focused on specific content categories — video-first, audio-first, community-driven, or vertical-specific — have entered the VLOP cohort where their European user base meets threshold under the refined methodology. Regional European platforms serving language-specific or country-specific user bases have been designated where their European user base crosses threshold. E-commerce marketplaces with social features including user-generated content, community functions, and social commerce mechanisms have been reviewed under the second wave methodology with several designations. Messaging platforms with public broadcasting features have been included where the public features meet threshold independent of private messaging features. The newly designated platforms have approximately six months from designation announcement to reach full compliance with VLOP obligations, with the Commission signaling willingness to work collaboratively during transition while maintaining the compliance endpoint. The practical enforcement risk during the transition period focuses on platforms that fail to demonstrate good faith progress toward compliance rather than platforms that achieve partial but measurable progress. For the authoritative current VLOP list, refer to the European Commission publication, and for platform-specific compliance requirements see our Meta Ad Policies, TikTok Community Guidelines, and LinkedIn Advertising Policies guides for examples of VLOP obligation implementation across the original cohort. For ongoing platform designation monitoring, subscribe to our Policy Change Tracker.

What advertising transparency obligations apply to VLOPs and how have they been expanded?

VLOP advertising transparency obligations under the DSA require designated platforms to maintain publicly accessible advertising repositories, provide researcher access to advertising data, disclose targeting parameters and audience configuration, identify funding sources and commercial relationships, and label advertising content consistently across surfaces. The April 2026 second wave expansion refines these obligations based on first wave enforcement learnings and the December 2025 X decision that identified specific gaps in first wave repository implementations. The advertising repository obligation requires platforms to maintain a publicly searchable archive of advertising content served to EU users, with retention extending at least one year after the ad last ran and with functionality supporting research, regulatory oversight, and public scrutiny. The second wave expansion specifies that repositories must include the complete ad creative including all content variants served, the targeting parameters including targeting dimensions used and audience definitions, the funding source including the legal entity that paid for the advertising and the payment chain, the delivery metrics including impressions and reach data, and the policy status including whether the ad was subject to content moderation action. Repository access requires no registration, no access limitations that effectively block research, and no design choices that functionally restrict use of the repository. The December 2025 X decision specifically identified that X's repository lacked critical information such as ad content and funding entity identity, and that X's repository included design features that undermined the repository purpose. These findings now constitute enforcement precedent for repository design evaluation. The researcher data access obligation requires platforms to provide vetted researchers with access to platform data supporting risk assessment and academic research on platform effects. The second wave expansion refines vetting criteria, clarifies data access formats, and strengthens the obligation to respond substantively to researcher access requests within defined timelines. Platforms that fail to provide meaningful researcher access face enforcement exposure even where they maintain public repositories. The targeting parameter disclosure obligation requires platforms to disclose the targeting dimensions available to advertisers and the specific targeting applied to each ad in the repository. The second wave expansion addresses granularity requirements — targeting disclosure must be detailed enough to support research into audience targeting patterns including for sensitive categories like political advertising, health-related targeting, and financial services targeting. The funding source disclosure obligation requires identification of the legal entity funding the advertising, the commercial chain through which payment flows, and any relationship disclosures where the funding entity differs from the advertiser entity. The second wave expansion strengthens the obligation to resolve chain disclosure ambiguity and to flag potentially undisclosed political funding. For DSA compliance infrastructure evaluation, see our EU DSA Compliance Guide and use the Legal Compliance Scan.

How does the X €120 million fine precedent affect other platforms and future enforcement?

The December 2025 European Commission decision fining X €120 million for DSA non-compliance established the first substantive enforcement precedent under the framework and signaled the Commission's willingness to impose material penalties on platforms that fail to meet DSA obligations. The precedent affects other platforms and future enforcement in several specific ways that advertisers and platform operators should understand when modeling DSA enforcement risk. The penalty magnitude precedent sets expectation that DSA non-compliance attracts penalties at or near the statutory maximum for serious violations. The €120 million figure sat below the 6 percent of global annual turnover statutory maximum, though the Commission did not publish it as a fixed percentage of turnover and X private revenue makes any precise share a third-party estimate rather than an official figure. The Commission did not apply the maximum — leaving room for higher penalties in future decisions involving more serious violations or repeat non-compliance patterns. Platforms considering DSA compliance investment can now assess potential enforcement exposure with a concrete reference point rather than theoretical maximum. The violation type precedent identifies advertising transparency, deceptive design, and researcher access as priority enforcement areas. The X decision addressed three distinct violations — the deceptive blue checkmark design that historically signaled verification but had been redefined as paid subscription indicator, the advertising repository gaps that undermined research and oversight purposes, and the researcher data access failures that blocked academic research into platform effects. Other platforms should expect scrutiny in these specific areas and should prioritize compliance investment accordingly. The process precedent establishes Commission enforcement approach including the investigation timeline, the engagement with the affected platform, the documentation requirements, and the decision issuance format. Platforms now have clearer expectation of how Commission enforcement processes operate, which supports both compliance preparation and enforcement response if proceedings initiate. The appeal precedent will be established if X pursues appeal against the decision, with outcome affecting the durability of the €120 million figure and the underlying legal analysis. Advertisers and platforms should monitor appeal developments as they materially affect precedent value. The cross-platform effect of the X precedent has been visible in 2026 compliance investment across the original VLOP cohort. Meta, Google, TikTok, and other platforms have accelerated DSA compliance infrastructure investment in response to the precedent, with visible improvements in ad repository quality, researcher access responsiveness, and targeting disclosure granularity. The newly designated second wave platforms face the X precedent as baseline expectation rather than aspirational target — compliance must meet or exceed the standards that the X decision found deficient. The future enforcement pipeline includes pending cases against Meta and TikTok on related issues, with Commission signals that decisions will follow the X precedent pattern. Advertisers should assume that the enforcement tempo established in late 2025 continues through 2026 and beyond. For X-specific policy compliance review see our X Ads Policy guide.

What compliance obligations apply to advertisers placing ads on VLOPs in the EU?

Advertiser obligations under the DSA operate primarily through the VLOP infrastructure rather than through direct advertiser regulation, but advertisers face substantial indirect obligations as their advertising becomes subject to VLOP transparency, repository, and enforcement mechanisms. Advertisers placing ads that reach EU users on VLOP platforms should understand and prepare for five categories of compliance obligation that affect creative, targeting, funding disclosure, repository inclusion, and enforcement risk. Creative transparency obligations require that advertising creative accurately identifies the advertiser, avoids deceptive design that misleads about the commercial nature of the content, and complies with content policies that VLOPs apply in support of their DSA obligations. Creative that fails to meet platform content policies faces removal, and creative that attempts to disguise commercial nature faces both removal and potential enforcement referral. Advertisers should maintain pre-flight review processes that evaluate creative against DSA-aligned content policies rather than treating compliance as a post-hoc concern. For creative compliance review use the AI Compliance Audit. Targeting transparency obligations require that advertisers accurately represent targeting configuration in platform interfaces and accept that targeting configuration will be disclosed in the VLOP advertising repository. Advertisers cannot separate commercial targeting practice from repository disclosure — what the advertiser targets in the platform interface becomes visible in the repository, and targeting that would be problematic to disclose publicly should not be configured in the campaign. Advertisers should audit targeting practice against the repository disclosure transparency standard, particularly for sensitive categories like political advertising, health-related targeting, and demographic-sensitive categories. Funding source transparency obligations require that advertisers accurately identify the legal entity funding the advertising in platform interfaces, with VLOP systems propagating funding source information to the repository. Advertisers that route advertising through intermediaries, agencies, or holding companies should ensure that the ultimate funding source is identifiable in the platform interface and repository, avoiding structures that obscure funding chain. Political advertising funding source transparency faces particularly strict requirements given political advertising's elevated sensitivity in DSA frameworks. Repository inclusion obligations require that advertisers accept advertising repository inclusion as a condition of VLOP advertising access. Advertisers cannot opt out of repository inclusion for advertising served to EU users. Advertisers concerned about competitive disclosure should factor repository visibility into strategic decisions rather than attempt to avoid repository through technical workarounds — workarounds are increasingly detected and face enforcement. Enforcement risk obligations include exposure to VLOP enforcement action on advertiser creative, targeting, or funding practices that fail platform or DSA compliance. Enforcement actions may include creative removal, campaign suspension, ad account restrictions, and advertiser account suspension for serious or repeat violations. Advertisers should maintain internal compliance infrastructure that supports rapid response to VLOP enforcement inquiries and remediation actions. For comprehensive EU DSA advertiser compliance framework, see our EU DSA Compliance Guide and use the Legal Compliance Scan.

What penalties apply under DSA for non-compliance and how are they calculated?

DSA penalty framework provides for significant financial penalties that scale with platform global turnover, with enforcement options beyond financial penalty including operational remedies and potential service restrictions for severe or persistent non-compliance. The framework reflects EU enforcement approach that favors substantial penalties supported by remedial obligations rather than lower penalties with weaker remediation. Advertisers and platforms should understand the penalty structure to calibrate DSA compliance investment appropriately. The standard penalty ceiling under the DSA is 6 percent of the global annual turnover of the platform, with the Commission calculating turnover based on the prior financial year. For major platforms, 6 percent of turnover represents billions of euros in potential exposure, with the X precedent set at €120 million, below the 6 percent ceiling (the Commission did not publish it as a fixed share of turnover). Penalties at the maximum level are reserved for severe violations or repeat non-compliance patterns; first-time violations or less severe issues attract lower but still material penalties. The penalty calculation methodology considers multiple factors including the nature and gravity of the violation (systemic violations attract higher penalties than isolated issues), the scale of user impact (violations affecting larger user populations attract higher penalties), the duration of non-compliance (persistent violations attract higher penalties than promptly remediated issues), the platform's cooperation during investigation (cooperative platforms receive mitigation consideration), the platform's overall compliance posture (platforms with strong compliance infrastructure receive mitigation consideration compared with platforms that treat compliance as minimal), and any prior enforcement history (platforms with prior violations face higher penalties for subsequent violations). The financial penalty structure is complemented by operational remedies that the Commission may require, including compliance infrastructure investments, third-party audits of compliance posture, public reporting on remediation progress, and binding commitments to specific compliance improvements. Operational remedies often exceed the financial penalty in practical business impact, particularly for platforms that have underinvested in compliance infrastructure. Periodic penalties under DSA Article 76 allow the Commission to impose daily fines for continuing non-compliance following a decision, with amounts up to 5 percent of average daily global turnover per day of non-compliance. Periodic penalties create strong incentive for prompt remediation following decisions rather than extended delay while disputing findings. Service restriction measures remain available for extreme or persistent non-compliance, with the Commission able to request judicial orders restricting platform service availability in the EU. Service restrictions have not yet been applied in the DSA framework but remain available for situations where penalties and remedial orders fail to produce compliance. Advertiser indirect exposure to penalties operates through platform enforcement against advertisers whose advertising violations contribute to platform non-compliance. Platforms increasingly penalize advertisers whose practice creates DSA compliance issues for the platform, with consequences including ad account restrictions and suspensions. For EU advertising compliance across platforms use the Legal Compliance Scan.

Don't miss the next policy change.

Create a free account — track every policy change across 8 platforms, get instant alerts, and access every free compliance tool. Or try our Meta Rejection Predictor first.

Create Free Account

Report Keywords — Run AI Compliance Audit

#EU DSA#Digital Services Act#VLOP#Advertising Transparency#Ad Repository#Risk Assessment#EU Regulation#Platform Compliance#2026 Policy#Compliance Guide 2026#Advertisers#Regulation

Share This Report

Tweet Share

DSA Article 22 Trusted Flagger Q2 2026: Designations, Notice Velocity, Platform Response SLA & Advertiser Implications

Article 22 Trusted Flagger designations are reshaping platform takedown velocity across the EU. The framework requires platforms to prioritise notices from designated flaggers — with material implications for advertiser content removal risk.

EU AI Act Article 50 Ad Creative Disclosure May 2026: Deployer Obligations, Watermarking & August 2 Enforcement

Article 50 of the EU AI Act enters force on August 2 2026. Brands deploying AI-generated ad creative must disclose synthesis and preserve machine-readable watermarks or face fines up to €15M.

April 2026 Platform Enforcement Digest: 30-Day Recap Across Eight VLOPs and Sector Implications

April 2026 saw sustained enforcement volume across the eight social-media VLOPs with category share shifts that signal upcoming policy direction. Meta and TikTok lead absolute volume; LinkedIn shows category concentration; Pinterest enforcement framework is the strictest. The 30-day recap and sector implications.

Platforms

Industries

Knowledge

Blog

EU DSA Second Wave Enforcement April 2026 — New VLOP Designations, Expanded Advertising Transparency Obligations & 6 Percent Turnover Fines