Introduction

On 22 June 2026, INACH and EOOH organised a webinar on the European Commission’s draft Guidelines for Trusted Flaggers under Article 22 of the Digital Services Act (DSA). The webinar aimed to inform civil society organisations about the proposed guidelines, explore their practical implications and facilitate discussion ahead of the public consultation deadline on 26 June 2026.

INACH presented an overview of the European Commission’s draft Guidelines on the Trusted Flagger mechanism under Article 22 of the Digital Services Act (DSA), highlighting their practical implications for Trusted Flaggers, online platforms and Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs).

The guidelines are non-binding and aim to clarify how Article 22 should be implemented and enforced across the EU. The Commission invited stakeholders to provide feedback on the proposed guidelines, particularly regarding implementation challenges, existing good and poor practices, and areas requiring further clarification.

1.  Eligibility and application procedures: The guidelines clarify the requirements for obtaining Trusted Flagger status, the evidence applicants must provide, and the responsibilities of DSCs in assessing applications. They also encourage platforms to provide accessible application procedures and effective onboarding.

2. Platform transparency and access to information: Platforms should provide Trusted Flaggers with retroactive access to information about submitted notices, including submission dates, actions taken, response times, and the outcomes of complaints or appeals.

3.  Reporting obligations and accountability: Trusted Flaggers are expected to report on their independence, organisational changes, governance, operational activities and relevant funding sources. Platforms may raise concerns with DSCs when Trusted Flaggers submit significant numbers of insufficiently precise, inadequately substantiated or inaccurate notices.

4. Suspension and revocation of Trusted Flagger status: The guidelines outline procedures for investigating Trusted Flaggers that may no longer meet the eligibility criteria. They emphasise objective assessments, opportunities for organisations to respond, and access to judicial review or other remedies.

5. Operational support and capacity building: The Commission recognises the need to strengthen Trusted Flaggers’ operational capacity and independence. Proposed measures include standardised reporting through APIs, multilingual support, improved onboarding, training, information-sharing and better access to financial support, particularly for non-profit organisations.
   
   

The presentation highlights the Commission’s efforts to establish a more consistent, transparent and effective Trusted Flagger mechanism across the EU. While the guidelines provide important clarification on the responsibilities of Trusted Flaggers, platforms and regulators, their effectiveness will depend on practical implementation, platform cooperation and adequate support for civil society organisations.

German Trusted Flagger Hateaid raised several concerns about the practical implementation of the draft Trusted Flagger Guidelines.

Protection of Personal Data

Protecting Trusted Flaggers’ personal data remains an important concern. Platforms continue to request the names of individuals submitting notices, even when they are reporting on behalf of a Trusted Flagger organisation. This information is often unnecessary and may expose individuals to potential risks. Similarly, questions were raised about why users need to be told their content was reported by a specific Trusted Flagger organisation, as this disclosure may create additional safety risks without a clear purpose.

Independence and Transparency in the Application Process

A recommendation was made to establish separate teams within DSCs: one to provide guidance and support to organisations interested in applying for Trusted Flagger status, and another to assess applications. This separation would help prevent potential conflicts of interest and ensure that organisations can seek advice without compromising the independence of the assessment process.

Lack of Harmonisation Across EU Member States

 Significant differences remain between national approaches to Trusted Flagger eligibility and implementation. In some countries, requirements are particularly restrictive, such as requiring individuals to hold a law degree to report content. Furthermore, adding more categorisations in the draft guidelines risks creating further confusion, as organisations already need to navigate national requirements, DSC guidance, and platform-specific procedures. Greater harmonisation and clarity are therefore needed.

Administrative Burden and Annual Reporting

 The introduction of standardised templates for Trusted Flaggers’ annual reports was welcomed as a positive step towards consistency and transparency. However, concerns were raised that the proposed templates request extensive information beyond what the DSA explicitly requires. This could create additional administrative burdens for civil society organisations, many of which already operate with limited resources. Reporting requirements should therefore remain proportionate and aligned with the obligations established under the DSA.

Conclusions

The webinar concluded with a presentation by Appeals Centre Europe (ACE) on its Transparency Report, providing additional insights into the functioning of Out-of-Court Dispute settlement under the DSA. In about 1400 hate speech cases, 70% ACE disagreed with the platforms’ decision to leave it up. Their concern is the implementation of their decisions. In the majority of the ACE decisions the platforms are not following that. The ACE decisions are non-binding however the DSA also mentions ODS mechanisms as a way to mitigate systemic risks. 

The webinar brought together perspectives from civil society, the European Commission and national regulators. Speakers from HateAid, DG CONNECT and KommAustria discussed the role and responsibilities of Trusted Flaggers, the opportunities and challenges associated with the mechanism, and the importance of ensuring its effective implementation across the EU. Participants were also invited to raise questions and exchange views on potential feedback to the consultation.