The urgency of Poland's need to enforce the Digital Service Act becomes apparent when examining how users—whether individuals or civil society groups—currently lack meaningful protection against the market dominance of major social platforms. Until the DSA takes effect, those who face content removal have virtually no practical remedies available.

What about user empowerment promised by the DSA?

In March 2024, Warsaw's District Court ordered Meta Ireland Inc. to restore pages and materials belonging to the Polish civil society organization Civil Drug Policy Initiative (SIN) that had been removed from Instagram and Facebook. Meta subsequently filed an appeal, and as of one year later, the content has not been restored.

The organization's accounts and groups were taken down without justification in 2018. The case underscores how platform operators leverage their market position to unilaterally dictate what content users may post and to set the conditions under which content disputes are resolved, including the choice of legal venue and language.

Content removal by major platforms affects diverse constituencies: elected officials, creative professionals, news organizations, and advocacy groups all experience such actions. SIN, which focuses on drug education and harm reduction efforts, enlisted support from Panoptykon and spent six years pursuing legal action to recover its Facebook and Instagram presence. Meta deactivated these channels without warning or justification, effectively severing the organization's connection to its audience.

6 years in court against private censorship

The lower court sided with SIN, finding that Meta violated the organization's rights by removing content without explanation and denying a meaningful opportunity to contest the action.

Meta contested the ruling, asserting chiefly that Polish courts lack authority to hear the dispute. The company contended that its terms of service require all disputes involving Polish users to be resolved in Ireland.

The lower court rejected this argument on multiple grounds. First, it noted that the terms of service directing disputes to Ireland were adopted after SIN's content had already been blocked, making them inapplicable to this case. When Meta removed SIN's pages and groups in March 2018, an earlier version of Facebook's terms was in effect—one that pointed to U.S. courts for dispute resolution.

Second, the court determined that because the dispute concerns infringement of personal rights, EU law and decisions from the Court of Justice of the European Union permit the case to be brought in the jurisdiction where the harm occurred—Poland in this instance.

Third, the court found the clause requiring disputes to be handled in Ireland to be "unfair." While a large multinational enterprise possesses the financial means to engage attorneys anywhere globally, individual users and smaller organizations would face substantial obstacles if compelled to litigate abroad, including language barriers and unfamiliarity with foreign legal systems.

Meta operates approximately 20 million Facebook accounts and roughly 16 million Instagram accounts across Poland. Should it not be expected to answer for its decisions within the country where it maintains such a substantial user base?

Blocked by Facebook? In Poland that's your problem

The Digital Service Act, adopted by the European Union in 2022, was designed to strengthen user protections against Very Large Online Platforms such as Facebook and Instagram. The regulation mandates that platforms explain why they remove content and furnish users with practical mechanisms to challenge such decisions. Failure to comply allows users to file complaints with their national Digital Service Coordinator (DSC). Users may also seek resolution through out-of-court dispute settlement bodies accredited by national DSCs.

This is what the law requires. In practice, however, a different picture emerges. Ongoing complaints from users about excessive removals demonstrate that Meta continues to fall short of these obligations. When suspending users, the platform offers only generic explanations and provides inadequate avenues for effective appeals within its own systems. In Poland specifically, users have no mechanism to lodge complaints because the Polish government has not yet implemented the DSA, despite the deadline passing in February 2024. As of April 2025, Poland remains the sole EU member state without a designated DSC. The lack of a DSC also prevents the establishment of certified out-of-court dispute resolution bodies, since no national authority exists to certify them.

The SIN judgment has prompted the Polish government to develop a new independent system for reviewing platform decisions to remove content. While the case opens a path to judicial remedies in Poland for addressing opaque and unjustified content moderation through national courts, it also exposes the limitations of relying on courts—specifically their expense and the time required for resolution. The proposed Polish DSA implementation would grant the President of the Office for Electronic Communications, who would also serve as the DSC, authority to intervene in individual content moderation disputes between users and platforms.

This authority would encompass the power to require platforms to restore wrongfully deleted content within days of receiving a complaint. Though promising in theory, this mechanism remains under legislative consideration for the time being.

Panoptykon receives a steady stream of requests from individuals whose livelihoods or personal lives have been disrupted by account suspensions from Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and similar services. Many held optimism when the DSA was enacted, but that has given way to mounting disappointment. Despite these individuals possessing legal rights, Poland still lacks an operational system to enforce them swiftly and effectively. Change may be forthcoming, which would prevent platforms from ignoring legal obligations. For now, Panoptykon continues working alongside SIN through the appellate process, determined to preserve the favorable ruling achieved so far and secure its confirmation in the final judgment.

Source: EDRi (European Digital Rights)