Copyright disputes are among the most difficult content moderation cases online. A platform may receive a notice alleging that a video, image, song, meme, product listing or post infringes copyright. The platform then has to decide quickly whether to remove it, restrict its visibility, suspend monetisation, or leave it online. For rightsholders, delay may mean continuing infringement. For users, an overbroad takedown may mean lost speech, lost income, or loss of access to an account.
The Digital Services Act (“DSA”) does not turn platforms into copyright courts. But it does change the procedure around platform decisions. Under Article 16 DSA, hosting services must provide notice-and-action mechanisms for allegedly illegal content. These mechanisms must be user-friendly and allow sufficiently precise and substantiated notices. Under Article 17 DSA, where a platform restricts content, accounts, visibility or monetisation because content is illegal or violates its terms, it must give the affected user a clear and specific statement of reasons. Online platforms must also provide internal complaint-handling systems under Article 20 DSA.
This matters especially in copyright cases because the legal answer is rarely obvious. A platform may need to consider whether the work is protected, who owns the rights, whether the user had a licence, whether the allegedly infringing material is sufficiently similar, and whether an exception such as quotation, criticism, review, parody, pastiche or incidental use may apply. The Court of Justice of the EU has repeatedly emphasised that copyright enforcement must be balanced with users’ freedom of expression and information, including in the context of platform filtering obligations under Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive.
The practical problem is scale. Platforms often rely on automated tools, standardised notice forms and fast enforcement workflows. That may be unavoidable for large services, but copyright disputes are fact-sensitive. A ten-second clip may be infringement in one context and lawful quotation or parody in another. A photo may be unauthorised copying, but it may also be licensed, user-owned, or wrongly matched by an automated system. A repeat-infringer policy may be necessary, but it may also wrongly penalise a creator whose lawful content was repeatedly flagged.
The DSA’s transparency architecture helps, but transparency alone is not enough. The Commission’s DSA Transparency Database allows public scrutiny of platform moderation decisions, and early empirical studies show both the potential and the limitations of this system: it creates visibility at scale, but platform reporting practices may still differ in quality, consistency and completeness.
This is where Article 21 DSA becomes important. Users affected by certain platform moderation decisions may refer disputes to a certified out-of-court dispute settlement body. These bodies offer an independent route outside the platform’s own appeals system and outside traditional court litigation. Platforms must engage with the process in good faith, although Article 21 decisions are not binding in the same way as court judgments. The mechanism is designed to be accessible, independent, faster than ordinary litigation, and free of charge or available at only a nominal fee for users.
For copyright moderation, this kind of review can be valuable. It gives users a realistic way to challenge removals, demonetisation, account restrictions or rejected notices without needing to start expensive proceedings. It also gives platforms a structured opportunity to explain their decision and, where appropriate, correct mistakes. Over time, reasoned ODS decisions can help identify recurring problems: vague copyright notices, insufficient statements of reasons, overreliance on automated matching, poor consideration of exceptions, or inconsistent treatment of creators and rightsholders.
ADROIT is certified to provide out-of-court dispute resolution under the DSA across the EU and handles disputes relating to platform content moderation decisions. Its services are free of charge for users.
Copyright disputes will remain legally difficult. The DSA’s contribution is not to make every answer simple. It is to make the process fairer: clearer reasons, better review, independent redress, and a practical alternative to court where users and platforms can resolve content moderation disputes efficiently.