European researchers trying to map the hidden mechanics of online influence campaigns keep hitting the same barrier. Platforms like TikTok, X and Meta turn away their requests for data. Or hand over scraps that can’t be verified. All while an ambitious EU law promises them the keys.
The Digital Services Act set out to change that. Two years on, the results disappoint. Approval rates swing wildly by company. Security rules demand resources universities rarely possess. And even approved projects often yield data too patchy for solid science. But a fresh enforcement push from Brussels, including a major fine on X, hints at possible shifts ahead.
Consider Adriana Iamnitchi. She chairs computational social sciences at Maastricht University in the Netherlands. In late October 2025, she applied for TikTok API access. Her target: a sudden surge of pro-Calin Georgescu content on the platform during Romania’s presidential race. Accounts that once pushed beauty tips pivoted to hard-line immigration talk and anti-Semitic tropes. Those posts racked up 120 million views. Georgescu shocked pollsters by taking the first round.
TikTok said no. The company cited failure to prove established researcher status, unclear commercial interests and unmet security requirements. Iamnitchi detailed the rejection in a blog post on the DSA Observatory. “If you are a scholar interested in how social media shapes society, the past years have been tough,” she wrote. “When you need data to investigate that impact, and that data is privately held, it can become practically impossible to research this space.”
Months later, TikTok itself acted. It flagged 116,000 accounts as potentially compromised and removed more than 27,000 tied to a coordinated fake engagement network boosting Georgescu’s Alliance for the Union of Romanians. The company admitted it didn’t know who ran the operation or where it came from. Romanian intelligence reports later pointed to Russian coordination and preferential treatment from the app. Iamnitchi believes timely data access might have uncovered the profiteers behind the campaign.
Her experience fits a broader pattern. Ars Technica reported on July 25, 2026, that misinformation researchers accuse the platforms of obstructing access required under the DSA. Rejections, daily quotas, costly APIs and heavy security demands create roadblocks. Duncan Allen, research officer at Democracy Reporting International in Germany, noted that companies replaced tools like Meta’s CrowdTangle with limited content libraries. X paywalled its API, charging hundreds of dollars monthly. “It can make it impossible to study anything at scale,” Allen said of TikTok’s post caps.
The law’s Article 40 aimed to fix this. Vetted researchers at credible institutions can request API data to examine systemic risks. Those include illegal content, disinformation and threats to fundamental rights. Yet implementation has faltered. Forms vary. Platforms interpret “systemic risk” narrowly. And the security bar proves daunting. Most demand storage on air-gapped machines disconnected from the internet. Universities lack such setups, Iamnitchi explained.
Even success brings doubts. L. K. Seiling coordinates the DSA40 Collaboratory, a German project tracking applications. Of 46 applications logged, 20 won approval and 14 faced rejection. TikTok approved 11 of 13. X rejected 11 of 23. Voluntary reporting likely masks a higher rejection rate. “There’s no structured advantage for researchers to use this pathway,” Seiling said. “Data access as it’s set up right now tries to disincentivize researchers.”
Reproducibility suffers too. API results often can’t be replicated by peers. That violates a basic tenet of science, Iamnitchi argued. “There’s no guarantee that the data is good.”
Researchers have few alternatives. Some scrape public interfaces, a slow, incomplete method. It misses full follower lists needed to trace coordinated networks. Others turn to courts. Democracy Reporting International and the Society for Civil Rights sued X after a 2024 rejection for German election research. A court ordered access. Yet X later blocked a similar Hungary project. Jurisdiction fights followed, with a Berlin court initially insisting on Irish proceedings since X’s EU base sits there. The group won on appeal but burned time and resources. “EU law is still not uniformly applied,” Allen said.
Regulators have noticed. In December 2025 the European Commission fined X €120 million. The penalty cited “unnecessary barriers” to researcher access that undermined studies of EU risks. X appealed in February 2026. It called the probe “incomplete and superficial.” But last week the Commission accepted X’s corrective action plan. The company must streamline vetting, offer free API access, speed processing and ease scraping limits. Six months to deliver. Allen called it “a step in the right direction” yet pressed for specifics on improved screening.
The Commission has opened similar probes into Meta and TikTok. Both “may have put in place burdensome procedures,” it said. Roundtables with platforms began in May to craft better vetting standards. A delegated act last year also widened access to nonpublic data for studying recommender systems, scams and more. Those rules remain largely untested. Researchers express cautious optimism.
Full follower lists from X could prove transformative. They would let analysts map how accounts amplify content in attacks. Without them, “black holes” in understanding platform behavior only expand, Iamnitchi has warned.
TikTok defended its record. A spokesperson told WIRED the firm granted tools to more than 1,500 research teams globally. It approved 130 EU applications in the second half of 2025. Its 1,000 daily API requests allow up to 100,000 video and comment records or 2 million follower records per day. The company views its offerings as DSA compliant but “would welcome further public guidance.”
Meta pointed to the expanded scope of its Content Library and API. They now span Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp Channels and Threads with privacy safeguards. Qualified nonprofits and journalists can apply. The firm noted CrowdTangle once covered only a fraction of public data.
Still, skepticism runs deep. The DSA40 Collaboratory data, while imperfect, shows uneven enforcement. X’s recent plan acceptance marks progress on paper. Yet researchers like Seiling and Allen have seen promises before. Without consistent, reproducible, large-scale data, the law’s goal of illuminating systemic harms stays out of reach.
And the stakes keep rising. From election interference to youth mental health, platforms shape public life in ways society struggles to measure. European officials bet the DSA would deliver transparency. So far, the platforms’ responses suggest otherwise. Brussels must now turn fines and action plans into actual access. Otherwise the black holes will swallow vital insights. Researchers will keep fighting in courts and through appeals. But science, and informed policy, cannot wait forever.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication