Two Bans, a Channel and DSA: How We Won a Dispute Against YouTube
June 22, 2026
Platforms love to block. The ban button is easy, the explanation is optional, and the reply to your appeal usually arrives somewhere between “never” and “after the heat death of the universe.” Until recently, a user had two options: swallow it, or sue a tech giant in a foreign jurisdiction — a pleasure available to the select few.
Since the Digital Services Act (DSA — Regulation (EU) 2022/2065) came into force, there is a third path. And in a recently concluded proceeding, we walked it all the way to the end — with a decision in our client’s favour.
The Case
Our client runs a YouTube channel devoted to card tournaments — an entirely lawful activity. The channel was blocked twice, each time with the laconic justification “harmful or dangerous content.” The client’s appeals were rejected without reasons. The appeal we filed as legal counsel received a reference number — and not a single word on the merits.
A classic. So we referred the dispute to a certified out-of-court dispute settlement body under Article 21 of the DSA.
What an Article 21 Proceeding Is
Article 21 of the DSA gives users whose content has been blocked or removed, or whose account has been suspended, the right to bring the dispute before a certified out-of-court body — no court, no expensive fees, no transatlantic adventures. The body examines whether the platform’s action complies with its own rules and with the DSA, and renders a decision.
In our case, the body was accredited by the Italian regulator AGCOM and operates in 16 official EU languages, including Bulgarian.
Google’s Objection (and Why It Failed)
Google reacted predictably: it raised an objection of inadmissibility, claiming the client was not resident in the EU — inferred from “account-level signals.”
The objection was rejected. The client is represented by counsel established in Sofia; the verified contact, the registration address and the IP address of the submission are all in Bulgaria; and the content itself is directed at and accessible to an audience within the EU/EEA. The territorial requirements of Article 21(1) were fully satisfied.
The Decision on the Merits
On the merits, the body found what had been obvious from the outset: there was not a single piece of evidence of harmful or dangerous content in the file. Google produced no concrete facts to justify a measure as serious as disabling an entire channel.
The “remove on first violation” approach, unsupported by evidence, was held to be manifestly disproportionate — incompatible both with the text of the platform’s own policy and with the procedural guarantees of the DSA. The proportionate course would have been for the platform to notify the user, allow time to correct the issue, and, if necessary, remove only the specific videos — rather than switch off the entire channel.
The result:
- the complaint was upheld in full;
- Google is to reinstate the account and remove the strikes;
- the costs of EUR 500 are to be borne by Google.
“Non-Binding” — and Why That Is Not Bad News
Here comes the honest part, which we will not bury in the fine print: a decision under Article 21 is non-binding and not directly enforceable. The platform cannot be “ordered” to comply with a single click.
That does not make it useless — quite the opposite. First, it is an official, reasoned finding by a certified body that the platform’s action breaches the DSA. Second — and this is the leverage — non-compliance can be reported to the regulator: in this case, to Coimisiún na Meán, the Digital Services Coordinator for Ireland, which supervises Google Ireland Limited, or to the national coordinator. And DSA enforcement proceedings are no longer a joke, nor are they symbolic.
In other words: the platform has a choice — comply voluntarily, or explain to its own regulator why it is ignoring a decision establishing an infringement.
The Steps, in Brief
For those who find themselves in a similar situation, here is what the path looks like:
- Exhaust the internal mechanism — file a complaint and appeal through the platform itself (and document its silence).
- Refer to a certified Article 21 DSA body — in your own language, at reasonable cost and without court proceedings.
- Examination on the merits — the body assesses admissibility, dismisses formal objections, and checks whether the platform’s measure is lawful and proportionate.
- Decision and costs — where the complaint is well-founded, costs are awarded against the platform.
- Compliance or escalation — voluntary reinstatement, or a referral to the Digital Services Coordinator in case of non-compliance.
Why This Matters
For years, the “platform versus user” relationship was structurally unequal. The DSA shifts the balance — and this case proves it in practice: a small channel, a large company, and a decision in favour of the smaller party.
If you are a business or a content creator and have faced blocking, demonetisation or account termination without a coherent explanation — do not treat silence as a final answer. There is a procedure. There are deadlines. And, as this case shows, there are results.
LexSofia advises and represents clients in disputes involving digital platforms, the DSA and the protection of rights online. For enquiries: yosifova@lexsofia.com | lexsofia.com
Comments
tags
related posts