The Citizen's Survival Guide to the Digital Services Act (DSA).

The only legitimate referee of free speech and the only arbiter of whatever contract exists between you and a platform is a court of law—real judges, real due process. Nothing else.

Survival Guide to the DSA, for the scrappy and the whiny alike, so the scrappy can bite harder, and the whiny finally run out of excuses to whimper.

The DSA, ChatControl, the so-called “democratic shield,” and all the Orwellian daydreams paraded by European leaders and bureaucrats aren’t policy. They’re delusions—grandiose, self-serving, and utterly detached from reality. At their core, they are a massive psychological warfare operation, engineered by the EU institutions and most member states… against the very people they claim to serve. Citizens, beware: your rulers have turned their paranoia into legislation.

[European Democracy Shield] Ni bouclier, ni démocratique

The DSA is unenforceable. Everyone in Brussels knows it. It’s not a licence to censorship—it simply empowers the “Digital Services Coordinators”—like France’s Arcom—to check whether platforms are meeting their moderation obligations as a process, not as a result.

Digital identity, ChatControl, and the digital euro are a tangle of technical impossibilities—and legally incompatible with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Which is exactly why the European Commission is sneaking around, trying to “reform” the GDPR behind everyone’s back. See the article below for the details.

[Analysis] Mass Surveillance and the Data Wars

So why all the threats, the decrees, the irrational avalanche of texts and press releases promising billions of euros starting in 2028 with the next EU budget?

The goal is simple: to harass, to terrorize, to make sure most people comply—just as they did during COVID. Independent media play along, ratcheting up the fear and clickbait, ignoring the hard work of investigating, analyzing, and actually informing the public about the reality behind it all.

Alternative Propaganda

A huge number of people make a business out of screaming “censorship!”—screams often followed by pleas for donations or crowdfunding. When you are actually censored, yes, you can make it known—but the real action is in the courts, because in these matters, it’s the judge who decides. Nobody else.

Chances are, you’ll have a good shot at winning against the platforms. And since these are civil or commercial cases, the loser pays—not just their own costs, but the legal fees of the other side. Sweet bonus: if you win, you can then go after the State’s Digital Services Coordinator or the “trusted third parties” who reported your content to the platform, seeking damages.

As we’ve said from the start, the DSA will only expand the battlefield.

A word of caution: reckless legal action can cost you dearly if you haven’t fully studied the case or if your content is plainly illegal. Always consult a lawyer before launching any proceedings.

Since this article serves the public interest, we are leaving it freely accessible.

---

As a platform user, you may face one of two situations: either your content is censored, or your account is suspended.

Whether you are a consumer or a professional/business, the matter falls under either the civil or commercial courts.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental right. The only institution entitled to control it is the judiciary. This is true across all EU countries and is guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, and the constitutions of every member state.

Censorship—the permanent removal of content—can only happen by court order. If a platform decides to remove or de-index content (which is effectively the same), it can only do so if the content is manifestly illegal and the removal is proportionate to the violation. Nothing prevents users from challenging a platform’s decision in court, forcing it to provide concrete evidence of the content’s manifest illegality and the proportionality of its action.

The same applies to “shadowbans.” A platform may suggest content to users based on interest and may choose not to promote certain content—but it cannot quietly suppress visibility without objective, legally justified reasons.

A European regulation like the DSA, even if implemented to the letter in national law, is far inferior to the principle of freedom of expression, which remains the fundamental guideline for judicial decisions.

In France, this was underscored by the Paris Judicial Court in two landmark rulings handed down back-to-back in September, in separate cases where plaintiffs tried to invoke the DSA to remove or de-index content. “Freedom of expression is the standard, and only manifestly illegal speech, established with concrete proofs, can justify restriction.”

The same applies to government bodies, prosecutors, Digital services coordinator, trusted third parties, fact-checkers, and the whole bureaucratic circus the DSA has set forth. This principle even trumps the platforms’ terms of service, which must comply.

What we are outlining below is based on French law. The process, however, remains the same in every EU member state. If you do not live in France, it is up to you to research the applicable laws and competent courts in your country of residence.

1 – In Case of Censorship

The procedure is the same for individuals, professionals, and businesses.

If content you created is removed, start with the platform’s internal appeal process, demanding its reinstatement and the following clarifications, which the platform is legally obliged to provide:

• Which exact law (article, paragraph) justifies the removal of my content?

• In accordance with Article 6 of the LCEN, I request a copy of the notification that triggered the removal, along with proof that it complies with the cited law.

• Under Articles 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 21, 25, 32, 34, 35, and 58 of the GDPR, I demand all data in your possession that contributed to the removal of my content.

If the removal concerns a critique or quotation of copyrighted material, cite Article L. 122‑5 of the Intellectual Property Code and ask the platform to reconsider the removal in light of this exception.

Make it crystal clear: if the platform does not restore your content nor respond precisely within one week, you will pursue the appropriate legal action after formal notice.

The legal procedure is a restraining order —an urgent court procedure, usually with a hearing within 15 days—at the judicial court where the platform’s headquarters are located in France. You do not need a lawyer to initiate this law suit, but consulting one is strongly recommended. You will, however, need the services of a judicial officer to serve your summons to the platform.

2 – Account Suspension

When you create an account on a platform, you enter into a service contract that binds both parties—you and the platform.

For a platform to suspend your account—whether you are an individual or a professional—it must first send you a formal notice specifying:

• The effective date of the suspension,

• The reasons for it, and

• The remedies available to challenge it.

No platform actually does this. They suspend accounts—and, in effect, the service contract—without any warning. This puts them in violation of the law.

If your account is suspended, there are two possible scenarios.

Whether you are a consumer, the judicial court is competent.

Just as with content censorship, start with the platform’s internal appeal procedure, demanding the immediate reinstatement of your account and proof that the platform acted in accordance with the law:

• Consumer Code – Articles L.121‑20‑3 and following

• All the freedom of expression provisions mentioned for censorship cases

Also demand disclosure of all data under the GDPR, just as with censorship.

Make it clear: if your account is not reinstated and the platform fails to provide explanations within a week, you will initiate legal action after formal notice. The procedure, like for censorship, is a restraining order, with the option of a full trial if you seek damages. The competent court is the judicial court where the platform’s headquarters are located in France. You are not required to hire a lawyer, but consulting one is highly recommended.

If you are a professional or a business, same rules, same punishment. Use the platform’s internal appeal procedure to demand immediate reinstatement and disclosure of the reasons for account suspension under:

• The platform’s terms of service

• Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for professional users of online intermediation services

• Article L.442‑1, II of the Commercial Code on significant imbalances between commercial partners

• All freedom of expression and GDPR provisions, as for censorship

If the platform fails to reinstate your account and provide detailed explanations within a week, make it clear that you will alert the Directorate of Competition, Consumer Affairs, and Fraud Control and pursue legal action after formal notice. The procedure is a restraining order filed at the commercial court where the platform’s headquarters are located. You will be required to hire a lawyer.

---

We repeat: only a judge controls the exercise of freedom of expression and resolves contractual disputes. Not Arcom, not “trusted third party” NGOs—even under the DSA.

Imagine the Paris Judicial Court receiving hundreds of restraining order per month against X (ex-Twitter), which it cannot reject and would be obliged to schedule because it’s a civil procedure. The result? The court would simply collapse under the weight.

Judges will not be frustrated at plaintiffs exercising a constitutionally guaranteed right—but at Arcom, the “trusted third party” NGOs, and the government, the true culprits behind this court congestion. All of this chaos originates from the DSA, a regulation originally designed at the behest of the Obama administration, which sought to outsource censorship of Americans to Europe, sidestepping the First Amendment.