Article 21 of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) allows national Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs) to endow organisations with the task of settling content moderation disputes. The Article 21 Academic Advisory Board (‘The Board’) brings together researchers to facilitate discussions and provide practical guidance on how out-of-court dispute settlement (ODS) bodies should function.
The Article 21 Academic Advisory Board discusses the most challenging issues arising in the development of out-of-court dispute settlement mechanisms under the DSA. It provides guidance to out-of-court dispute resolution bodies and regulators and informs the work of academics and civil society organisations. Exploring how to put Article 21 into practice, it aims to make an important contribution to the emerging out-of-court dispute resolution landscape and shape how out-of-court dispute settlement can improve content moderation accountability in Europe and globally.
The Board consists of four academics who commit to serving on the Board for a minimum of twelve months. In every meeting, a fifth seat on the Board will be filled by an academic who has particular expertise on the subject matter and contributes to the meeting as a discussant. The Board is organised and facilitated by its administration and Research Fellows.
Aspiring and certified ODS bodies can bring the most difficult and consequential issues arising from their establishment and operations to the attention of the Board. The Advisory Board selects the most pressing issues raised to it and discusses them in bi-monthly meetings under Chatham House Rules. To inform the discussion of the Board, regulators are invited to provide their perspectives on the issues.
Following the discussion, the Advisory Board publishes “Discussion Reports.” These reports clearly outline the questions discussed, provide different options to answer them and outline their implications.
ODS bodies that raise issues to the Board also commit to providing explanations of their current practice and plans to improve their practice to the Board. These explanations will either be treated as an internal resource for the Board or, with the agreement of the ODS bodies, be published on the Board's website after the Board has issued its report.
For more detailed explanations and information on how to contribute to the work of the Board, see the FAQs below.
João Pedro Quintais is an Associate Professor, Institute for Information Law (IViR) at the University of Amsterdam. His research areas include the application of intellectual property (IP) law to new technologies, the implications of copyright law and its enforcement, the role and responsibilities of large-scale platforms in the context of illegal or harmful content moderation, as well as legal implications of generative AI.
Iva Nenadić is an Assistant Professor of media and digital policy at the University of Zagreb and a Research Fellow at the European University Institute’s Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom. She studies media pluralism in the context of content moderation policies of online platforms, and related regulatory interventions. She is a member of the Committee of Experts on the Impacts of GenAI for Freedom of Expression (MSI-AI) at the Council of Europe, and in the Management Committee of the European Digital Media Observatory.
Giovanni De Gregorio is the PLMJ Chair in Law and Technology at Católica Global School of Law and Católica Lisbon School of Law. His research interests include digital constitutionalism, freedom of expression, privacy and data protection law, and digital policy. Giovanni is the author of the monograph Digital Constitutionalism in Europe: Reframing Rights and Powers in the Algorithmic Society (Cambridge University Press 2022).
Hannah Ruschemeier has been holder of the Chair of Public Law at the Institute for Constitutional, Administrative, and Economic Law at the University Osnabrück since 2025. Prior to this, she was a junior professor (TTW3) of public law specializing in data protection law and digitalization law at the FernUniversität in Hagen from mid-2022. Her research interests include new forms of intervention in fundamental rights, digital aspects of administrative and constitutional law, legal theoretical foundations of digitalization, data protection law, and legal aspects of privacy.
Dr. Niklas Eder is the Co-Founder and Co-CEO of User Rights. Before that, he worked at the University of Oxford and taught the course “Technology, Democracy and Society” at King’s College London. Earlier in his career, he worked with the Oversight Board and was a visiting fellow at the Information Society Project at Yale Law School and at Columbia University. He earned his PhD in European constitutional law and legal philosophy from the University of Leipzig.
Nitya Kuthiala works at the intersection of emerging technologies, AI ethics, and safety. She leads the Board's communications and outreach work streams and supports the Board's strategic development.
Ibrahim Sabra, a Chevening Scholar, is a legal and policy expert specialising in AI governance, internet freedom, and platform regulation. He brings extensive experience from leading institutions, including Columbia University and the University of Vienna. He leads on the substantive preparation of meetings and the drafting of discussion reports.
This discussion report outlines the topic addressed by the Article 21 Academic Advisory Board at its fourth meeting: Reporting and Transparency of Out-of-Court Dispute Settlement Bodies under Article 21 DSA. In preparation of the meeting, the administration of the Board invited stakeholders to provide input on the questions at hand. Four organisations, including the Centre for Democracy & Technology Europe and the Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte submitted written contributions.
The Board agreed that transparency and reporting are crucial for regulators, researchers, users, and civil society organisations. It emphasised that users must receive accessible, clear, and meaningful information to make informed choices about which dispute resolution body to engage.
The Board stressed the importance of going beyond statistical data to include qualitative case-level information, enabling external observers to assess legitimacy, consistency, and adherence to fundamental rights. Whilst in one submission, concerns were raised about potential privacy risks in publishing individual decisions, the Board advocated for anonymised case publication as standard practice to ensure accountability and legitimacy, citing precedents from commercial arbitration and international courts.
The Board recommended a flexible approach to transparency reporting that balances standardisation with innovation. Rather than rigid templates, it proposed a baseline of minimum standardised quantitative metrics while allowing bodies to add tailored disclosures, enabling best practices to develop over time. Recognising that users rarely read full reports, the Board suggested a tiered strategy: formal annual reports for compliance, frequent user-friendly updates with digestible statistics and case examples, and restricted comprehensive data access for researchers and civil society.
The Board proposed creating a common repository (similar to the EU Commission’s DSA Transparency Database) to host all ODS bodies’ transparency reports, facilitating cross-institutional comparison and user access. The Advisory Board could then coordinate review, comparison, and potential auditing of these reports.
Lorenzo Gradoni and Pietro Ortolani joined the Board as discussants.
At its third meeting, the Article 21 Academic Advisory Board focused on how ODS bodies should review content moderation decisions concerning false information, including manipulated content.
The Board emphasised that ODS bodies should assess whether platforms apply their policies on false or misleading content fairly and in line with fundamental rights, but should not engage in fact-checking themselves. Platforms must maintain fact-checking systems that meet recognised standards and disclose relevant partnerships. If these comply with DSA obligations, ODS bodies should regard them as reasonable efforts to balance freedom of expression with the integrity of the online information environment.
Platforms must also provide clear explanations when content is labelled as false or manipulated. In the absence of such justifications, ODS bodies should consider recommending reinstatement. Given the implications for freedom of expression, a strict standard of review should apply.
The Board also discussed the difficulty of distinguishing falsehoods from opinion, the effects of content labels on visibility, and the need to engage with fact-checkers, journalists, and media professionals to refine criteria for evaluating platforms’ moderation practices.
Guest discussant Tommaso Canetta joined the session. He is Deputy Director of Pagella Politica/Facta.news, Coordinator of fact-checking activities for EDMO and IDMO, and a member of the Governance Body of the EFCSN and the Taskforce of the Code of Practice on Disinformation.
Article 14 (4) of the DSA mandates that platforms enforce restrictions “in a diligent, objective and proportionate manner” and with due regard to “fundamental rights and freedoms as enshrined in the Charter.” In its second meeting, the Board focused on the question of how Article 14 (4) of the DSA and the rights laid out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) should be accounted for in decisions by ODS bodies.
The Board recognises that the DSA places fundamental rights at the centre of the content moderation landscape it creates. However, it does not provide precise guidance on how these rights should be accounted for by the various actors in this landscape. The Board recommends that ODS bodies incorporate fundamental rights considerations into content moderation assessments, ensuring that moderation decisions align with the standards set by the DSA, the CFR, and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The Board emphasises that ODS bodies play a critical role in providing independent, swift, and thorough remedies to users, with the aim of protecting their rights. Their work complements the more scaled content moderation practices of platforms and judicial remedies before courts and should contribute to informing systemic risk assessments.
The Board stresses that fundamental rights assessments by ODS bodies must balance thoroughness and efficiency. Therefore, ODS bodies should decide on a case-by-case basis whether a fundamental rights review is necessary. Additionally, the Board advises that ODS bodies facilitate dialogue among stakeholders, including researchers and civil society, to clarify the standards governing the review of fundamental rights in procedures under Article 21. The goal of this dialogue is to specify how fundamental rights apply to content moderation and to define the roles of different actors in upholding these rights under the DSA.
Martin Husovec joined the Board as a discussant in the second board Meeting. Martin is an Associate Professor of Law at the London School of Economics.
In its first meeting, the Article 21 - Academic Advisory Board discussed how the quality of statements of reasons provided by platforms should impact the decisions of out-of-court dispute settlement bodies (ODS bodies). It developed a concrete solution which ODS bodies can apply to account for the importance of the reasoning given by platforms. This solution accounts for the fact that platforms require time to fully comply with the DSA and its Article 17. It also allows ODS bodies to assume a strategic role in the broader DSA landscape and to support gradual progress. The Discussion Report presents the questions the Board engaged with, outlines options considered by the Board and summarises its key considerations. These include the role of fundamental rights in dispute resolution; the standard of review of ODS bodies; strategic cooperation of ODS bodies with other important actors (e.g. fact checkers); possibilities of ODS bodies to encourage platforms to provide statements of reasons that satisfy the requirements under Art. 17 DSA; the role of reporting data and sharing insights with other actors and academia.
Jeffrey Howard joined the Board as a discussant in the first board Meeting. Jeffrey is an Associate Professor of Political Philosophy and Public Policy at University College London.
In the Article “A New Animal Joins the Circus: On the Nature and Value of Out-of-Court Dispute Settlement Under the DSA” published in Tech Policy Press, Niklas Eder (Director of the administration of the Article 21 - Academic Advisory Board) and Giovanni Di Gregorio (Board Member), developed a vision for the added value of out-of-court dispute settlement under the DSA and warn against pitfalls.
Article 21 of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) allows national Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs) to endow organisations with the task of settling content moderation disputes. These organisations, out-of-court dispute settlement (ODS) bodies, can then issue decisions on whether content moderation actions - such as the removal of posts or the demotion of content - were justified. The DSA envisions ODS decisions to be non-binding but requires platforms to cooperate with ODS bodies in good faith.
Out-of-court dispute settlement has the potential to improve platform accountability and protect rights and democracy. Yet, it is unclear how ODS bodies should function and how they can realise their full potential. The first ODS bodies, which have received or are seeking certification, have to answer difficult questions, for instance, regarding the level of fundamental rights protection in the digital sphere, for which regulators can only provide limited guidance. How these questions are answered will determine the nature and added value of out-of-court dispute settlement under the DSA.
The Article 21 Academic Advisory Board is founded on the premise that researchers should play a pivotal role in answering these questions. The Advisory Board serves as a forum and driver of an academic debate that seeks to provide practical guidance.
The administration selects Board Members and provides them with support in their work.
The Board consists of four academics who commit to serving on the Board for a minimum of twelve months. In every meeting, the Board will be joined by a discussant who has particular expertise on the subject matter.
The administration selects Board Members and provides them with support in their work.
The administration engages with ODS bodies which would like to consult the Board. In coordination with Board Members, it selects the questions the Board engages with, prepares and chairs meetings and publishes discussion reports.
The administration is supported by Fellows, who support the research and publications of the Advisory Board.
Neither the Board Members nor members of the administration or fellows receive funding from the Board.
The Advisory Board is established by User Rights. It invites other ODS bodies to participate.
The administration is responsible for selecting Board Members and contributing academics, scheduling and preparing meetings, drafting briefs and discussion reports, and publishing these reports. It is also responsible for defining and refining the processes of the Board, interacting with ODS bodies, proposing and selecting issues to be addressed, and chairing Board meetings.
The set-up of the Board will be reassessed after twelve months. It is difficult to predict how the ODS landscape and the role of the Board within it will evolve during this period. In June 2025, the administration will assess the role and functioning of the Board. Together with Board Members, the administration will evaluate the Advisory Board’s opportunities for additional impact and consider whether changes to the operating structure are necessary in its second year.
Based on this evaluation, the administration will develop a concept for the second year and discuss with the Board Members whether they wish to continue working with the Board.
There are three ways in which ODS bodies will interact with the Board. They will (1) join bi-monthly meetings, (2) contribute written statements that inform discussions and (3) share a brief explanation of how they currently approach the issues addressed in Discussion Reports and how they aim to approach them in the future.
(1) Bi-monthly meetings: ODS bodies that join the Board will meet with the administration of the Board on a bi-monthly basis. These meetings have two main agenda items:
a. Presentation of Discussion Report: The administration will share the Discussion Report with the ODS bodies prior to the meeting. In the meeting, the administration will answer questions related to this report which is followed by an open discussion.
b. Discussion of topics for the next Board meeting: The administration prepares potential topics for the next Board meeting and shares them with ODS bodies prior to the meeting. ODS bodies can contribute suggestions which will then be added to the pool of potential topics. The group will discuss the topics.
(2) Statement on a topic to inform Board discussion meetings: After the topic for the next Board meeting has been finalised, the administration will reach out to ODS bodies, share the topic which will be discussed, and request a short statement expressing the initial thoughts and point of views on the selected topic. This statement should not exceed one page. The statement will be shared with the Board before the Board meeting. It will serve as an internal resource informing the Board’s discussion. Its substance may also be reflected in the Discussion Report, but the information provided in the statement will not be attributed to any particular ODS body.
(3) Provide an explanation of the approach of the ODS body: After a Discussion Report has been shared with them, ODS bodies provide a brief explanation of how they are currently approaching the topic addressed in the report and how they aim to approach it in the future. The ODS bodies can choose whether this explanation should be treated as confidential and will only be shared with Board Members internally or whether it can be published on the Board’s website.
ODS bodies are free to work with Board Members outside of the processes of the Board if they wish.
ODS bodies who want to participate in the Advisory Board commit to work with the Board from the moment they sign up until the end of the first year of the Board’s existence (June 2025), following which the working of the Board and conditions of participation will be reconsidered.
Participating ODS bodies commit to providing the above-outlined contributions (participate in bi-monthly meetings and provide statements and explanations) for all Board meetings.
At least until June 2025, participation does not require a formal commitment and is free of charge.
Participating ODS bodies will be listed on the Board’s website unless otherwise agreed.
We expect ODS bodies to set up forums to coordinate on more practical issues, such as how to structure data exchange with platforms, how to ensure timely payment, how to check for previous relevant decisions, etc. The Academic Advisory Board, with its unique focus on discussing difficult questions shaping the substantive work and impact of ODS bodies, will complement and co-exist with such forums.
The Board will invite the Commission and DSCs to contribute to its work. It will also invite other organisations which have a mandate or mission to support the implementation of the DSA to contribute to the discussions of the Board.
The administration will contact the regulators and organisations contributing to the work of the Board in advance of each Board meeting. It will communicate the issue to be discussed.
It will also request a brief statement expressing regulators’ and organisations’ initial views on the issue or any considerations they believe should be taken into account in the discussion. These statements should not exceed one page. They will be shared with the Board in advance of the Board meeting and serve as an internal resource to inform the Board's discussion. Their content may also be reflected in the discussion reports, but the information contained in the statements will not be attributed to any particular regulator or organisation unless they explicitly agree.
In addition to submitting statements prior to Board meetings, regulators and contributing organisations may participate in a bi-monthly call. During these calls, the discussion report will be presented and there will be an opportunity for discussion. In addition, the administration will share potential topics for the next Board meeting and invite feedback on these topics. Regulators and organisations can make suggestions, which will be added to the pool of potential topics.
To contact the Board, please write board@user-rights.org.
