On November 4, 2024, the European Commission (“Commission”) adopted the implementing regulation on transparency reporting under the Digital Services Act (“DSA”). The implementing regulation is intended to harmonise the format and reporting time periods of the transparency reports required by the DSA.

Transparency reporting is required under Articles 15, 24 and 42 of the DSA. Obligations vary depending on whether the reporting entity is a provider of an intermediary service, hosting service, online platform, very large online platform (“VLOP”) or very large online search engine (“VLOSE”) (collectively, “Providers”).

The implementing regulation requires Providers to use the templates set out in Annex 1 of that regulation when complying with their DSA transparency reporting obligations. Providers must complete and publish this information in accordance with the instructions set out in Annex 2.

The Templates

Annex 1 contains two templates: (1) a “Quantitative Template” consisting of eight sections and (2) a “Qualitative Template” consisting of one section (collectively, the “Templates”):

  • The Quantitative Template is to be used to provide quantitative machine-readable information on content moderation. Each of the eight sections sets out tables where Providers can input standardised information on issues such as Member State orders to act against illegal content, notices submitted under the DSA, own-initiative content moderation, and handling of complaints through their internal complaint mechanisms.
  • The Qualitative Template is to be used to provide qualitative information on content moderation. It requires Providers to input free text descriptions under a range of indicators such as “Summary of the content moderation engaged in at the providers’ own initiative” or “Safeguards applied to the use of automated means.”

Note that, because the DSA imposes different transparency reporting obligations on different categories of services, not all sections of the Templates will apply to all Providers, and rows should be left blank if the requirement does not apply to the Provider.

Reporting periods

Providers must make their transparency reports publicly available no later than two months after the date of the conclusion of each reporting period. The implementing regulation sets out the reporting periods as follows:

  • For Providers of VLOPs and VLOSEs–which must publish their transparency reports at least every six months–the reporting periods cover 1 January through 30 June and 1 July through 31 December.
  • For all other Providers–which must report at least annually–the reporting period is from 1 January through 31 December.

Providers must begin to follow the Templates from 1 July 2025.

To align reporting timelines of providers of intermediary services, hosting services, and online platforms with the timeline of providers of VLOPs and VLOSEs, the implementing regulation sets out a transition period ending on 31 December 2025 (more detail for which can be found in Annex 2). Therefore, the first fully harmonised reporting cycle covers 1 January 2026 until 31 December 2026. Note that Providers must have already started to follow the Templates before this cycle but may not have used the Templates for the entire previous cycle, depending on how they have engaged with the transition period.

* * *

The Covington team regularly advises clients on their compliance with the DSA and other legislation affecting technology companies. Please reach out to a member of the team if you have any questions.

This post was written with the assistance of Pimmy Soongswang.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Madelaine Harrington Madelaine Harrington

Madelaine Harrington is an associate in the technology and media group. Her practice covers a wide range of regulatory and policy matters at the cross-section of artificial intelligence, content moderation, privacy, and free expression. She routinely advises on complex AI regulatory matters, including…

Madelaine Harrington is an associate in the technology and media group. Her practice covers a wide range of regulatory and policy matters at the cross-section of artificial intelligence, content moderation, privacy, and free expression. She routinely advises on complex AI regulatory matters, including AI product counseling, counseling on the obligations of GPAI model providers and providers of high-risk AI systems, value chain compliance, and AI regulatory issues arising in a variety of sector-specific contexts such as medical devices, biometrics, and employment.

Madelaine has substantial experience guiding clients through content, AI, and privacy-related regulatory investigations, and through the Member State litigation that often follows regulatory action. She has deep experience with regulatory investigations, and has counseled multi-national companies on complex cross-jurisdictional fact-gathering exercises and responses to alleged non-compliance. She routinely counsels clients on compliance within the EU regulatory framework, including the EU AI Act, Digital Services Act (DSA), Online Safety Act (OSA), General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and other EU laws and legislative proposals.

Madelaine’s representative matters include:

advising major technology companies and frontier model providers on obligations under the EU AI Act, including high-risk system classification, GPAI provider requirements, and value chain obligations,
counseling companies on the privacy implications of the EU AI Act,
providing product safety and online safety counseling for major social media and gaming companies, including on minor safety issues,
advising on regulatory investigations into platform safety issues and AI, including on harmful content and product safety issues, as well as platform notice-and-action mechanisms,
counseling on gaps and differences between the EU AI Act and US AI legislation,
coordinating responses to investigations into the handling of personal information under the GDPR,
representing a major online marketplace in cross-border advertising-related litigation in a Member State court, including preparing preliminary referral questions for the Court of Justice of the European Union,
counseling major technology companies on the use of artificial intelligence, specifically facial recognition technology in public spaces,
supporting technology transactions with regulatory and compliance advice on a variety of commercial agreements,
advising a major technology company on the legality of hacking defense tactics, and
advising a content company on compliance obligations under the DSA, including rules regarding recommender systems.

Madelaine’s work has previously involved representing U.S.-based clients on a wide range of First Amendment issues, including defamation lawsuits, access to courts, and FOIA. She maintains an active pro-bono practice representing journalists with various news-gathering needs, including advising on press access to conflict zones. Madelaine has contributed to numerous reports on the application of international human rights law to prosecutions of journalists and activists. She is also working on a team building out a project on the use of AI in public court systems.

Photo of Marty Hansen Marty Hansen

Martin Hansen has over two decades of experience representing some of the world’s leading innovative companies in the internet, IT, e-commerce, and life sciences sectors on a broad range of regulatory, intellectual property, and competition issues, including related to artificial intelligence. Martin has…

Martin Hansen has over two decades of experience representing some of the world’s leading innovative companies in the internet, IT, e-commerce, and life sciences sectors on a broad range of regulatory, intellectual property, and competition issues, including related to artificial intelligence. Martin has extensive experience in advising clients on matters arising under EU and U.S. law, UK law, the World Trade Organization agreements, and other trade agreements.