Digital Services Act disinformation signatories publish first 2026 reports

Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on Disinformation have published new transparency reports describing the measures they say they are taking to reduce the spread of disinformation online. According to the European Commission, the reports are the first ones submitted since the Code was recognised as a code of conduct under the Digital Services Act.

The reports are available through the Code’s Transparency Centre and come from a broad group of signatories, including online platforms such as Google, Meta, Microsoft, and TikTok, as well as fact-checkers, research organisations, civil society bodies, and representatives of the advertising industry. The European Commission says the reporting round covers the period from 1 July to 31 December 2025 and marks the first full reporting cycle linked to the Digital Services Act.

Dedicated sections in the reports cover responses to ongoing crises, notably the conflict in Ukraine, as well as measures intended to safeguard the integrity of elections. Data on the implementation of disinformation-related measures is also included, alongside developments in signatories’ policies, tools, and partnerships under the Digital Services Act framework.

Greater significance attaches to the reporting cycle because of the Code’s changed legal and regulatory position. The Commission says the Code was endorsed on 13 February 2025 by the Commission and the European Board for Digital Services, at the request of the signatories, as a code of conduct within the meaning of the Digital Services Act. From 1 July 2025, the Code became part of the co-regulatory framework under the Digital Services Act.

A more formal role now applies to the Code than under its earlier voluntary setup. According to the Commission, signatories’ adherence to its commitments is subject to independent annual auditing, and the Code serves as a relevant benchmark for determining compliance with Article 35 of the Digital Services Act. The Commission also says the Code has become a ‘significant and meaningful benchmark of DSA compliance’ for providers of very large online platforms and very large online search engines that adhere to its commitments under the Digital Services Act.

Reporting obligations differ depending on the type of signatory. Under the Code, providers of very large online platforms and very large online search engines commit to reporting, every six months, on the actions taken by their subscribed services. The Commission lists Google Search, YouTube, Google Ads, Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp, Bing, LinkedIn, and TikTok among the covered services, while other non-platform signatories report once per year under the Digital Services Act structure.

Broader policy relevance lies in the EU’s attempt to connect platform self-reporting to a more formal oversight structure. By placing the disinformation Code inside the Digital Services Act framework, the Commission and the Board are using voluntary commitments, transparency reporting, and auditing as part of a co-regulatory approach to systemic online risks. The reports themselves do not prove compliance, but they now carry greater weight within the wider Digital Services Act architecture for platform governance.

One further point is that the Commission notice focuses on publication of the reports rather than evaluating their quality or effectiveness. The notice says the reports describe measures, data, and policy developments, but it does not assess whether the actions taken by signatories were sufficient. Such a distinction matters in politically sensitive areas such as election integrity and crisis-related disinformation, especially where transparency under the Digital Services Act may shape future scrutiny.

Taken together, the first reporting round shows how the EU is using the Digital Services Act not only to impose direct legal obligations on large platforms and search engines, but also to anchor voluntary commitments within a more structured regulatory environment. Continued reporting, auditing, and review will determine how much practical weight the Code carries within the Digital Services Act and how effectively the Digital Services Act supports oversight of disinformation risks online.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!