X Refuses to Release Data to Researchers

According to a German press release, the Berlin Regional Court ordered platform X in summary proceedings to make publicly available data from the short-message service accessible to two NGOs in real time via an online interface. Academia and researchers need this data to investigate and assess so-called systemic risks. Systemic risks include, for example, political microtargeting, disinformation, and misleading advertising. Especially in the run-up to elections, this can have a significant impact on political opinion-forming processes. In the run-up to the German federal election, Democracy Reporting International and the Society for Civil Liberties sought to obtain data from X to evaluate these risks.

The legal basis for such a claim for access to information against X is found in Article 40 of the Digital Services Act. This legislation, adopted by the European Union and also known as the Digital Services Act (DSA), has been fully applicable since February 17, 2024, and is intended to ensure a safe and responsible online environment. To this end, it regulates, among other things, the removal of illegal content. Providers of certain online services, such as cloud services, online marketplaces, or social media platforms are partially exempt from liability for illegal content provided they comply with certain due diligence obligations. However, particularly large platforms, such as X, Amazon, or Meta pose significant risks to society and democracy in some cases. To enable researchers to better detect, identify, and understand these risks, the legislature has stipulated in Article 40 of the DSA that providers of very large online platforms must grant access to the necessary data via an online interface.

In a post dated February 18, 2025, the platform provider X stated that the company would challenge the court’s decision and file an appeal. X justified its decision by stating that it sought to protect the fundamental rights, namely, privacy and freedom of expression, of the affected users. The company also complained that it had not been heard by the court, thereby violating its fundamental right to a fair hearing. Furthermore, it argued that the judge was a member of the Society for Civil Liberties and might therefore be biased. The company’s statement concludes by asserting that X will defend the fundamental rights enshrined in the German Constitution and will not bow to injustice.

It will be up to the courts to balance the conflicting interests and fundamental rights of digital platforms and their users, on the one hand, and those of researchers and the general public, on the other. However, it is concerning when the scientific community is denied access to data that is indispensable for evaluating systemic risks on online platforms. Without these research findings, it is virtually impossible to effectively monitor the power of digital platforms and their influence on democracy. Invoking users’ fundamental rights appears to be part of the standard playbook of large platforms when it comes to evading scrutiny by the scientific community. In this regard, the PriDI project aims to strike a balance and demonstrate how current EU legislation, such as the DSA, can be reconciled with the fundamental rights and freedoms of all.