X Fined ₹1,050 Crore by EU: Why Elon Musk Is Losing His Battle With Governments [Explained]

Elon Musk just got handed a ₹1,050 crore bill from the European Union. His response? Call for the entire EU to be "abolished."

Quick Answer: X was fined €120 million (~₹1,050 crore) by the EU for deceiving users with fake verification badges, hiding ad data, and blocking researchers. Musk called for the EU to be dissolved. But his bigger headache might be India — where X already lost a major court case and faces 91 government takedown notices.

Here's the thing most coverage is missing: this fine is just the opening act. The real drama is unfolding across multiple continents, and Indian users are caught right in the crossfire.

The Fine: What X Actually Did Wrong

On December 5, 2025, the European Commission dropped a €120 million hammer on X. This wasn't some arbitrary regulatory flex — it was the culmination of a two-year investigation into three specific violations:

The blue checkmark issue is particularly damaging. Before Musk's acquisition, verification meant something — Twitter staff actually confirmed you were who you claimed to be. Now? Anyone can pay to obtain the "verified" status without the company meaningfully verifying who is behind the account, making it difficult for users to judge the authenticity of accounts and content they engage with.

This isn't a minor UI change. It's a fundamental erosion of trust that exposes users to scams, including impersonation frauds, as well as other forms of manipulation by malicious actors.

Why ₹1,050 Crore Is Actually a Slap on the Wrist

Here's what the headlines aren't telling you: the EU could have fined X up to 6% of its global annual turnover. That's not just X's revenue — under certain interpretations, it could include SpaceX revenue too.

The Commission's penalty is well below the maximum fine of 6% that the DSA can impose based on X's total global turnover. For context, Apple and Meta were fined €500 million and €200 million respectively under EU antitrust laws earlier in 2025.

So why the relatively modest amount? An EU official told Euronews that the delay was caused primarily by the Commission's goal to build a strong legal case anticipating that X will likely pursue a lawsuit to counter the findings.

Translation: they're saving ammunition for the appeals process.

Musk's Nuclear Response: "Abolish the EU"

Musk's reaction escalated from denial to full diplomatic incident in about 48 hours.

First came the one-word response to the Commission's announcement: "Bulls***."

Then, on December 6, he went scorched earth: "The EU should be abolished and sovereignty returned to individual countries, so that governments can better represent their people."

This isn't just CEO tantrum theater. The Trump administration locked arms with Musk almost immediately. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the fine an "attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments."

Vice President JD Vance, who previously called EU commissioners "commissars" at the Munich Security Conference, piled on. US Vice President JD Vance published a post on Thursday on X slamming the decision before it was even announced.

The irony? In 2022, Musk met with then-EU Commissioner Thierry Breton and said the DSA was "exactly aligned with my thinking." He literally said: "I agree with everything you said, really. I think we're very much of the same mind."

What changed? Musk bought Twitter.

But Here's Where It Gets Interesting: The India Angle

While everyone's focused on Brussels, Musk is quietly losing a potentially bigger battle in New Delhi.

On September 24, 2025, the Karnataka High Court delivered a 351-page judgment that could reshape how social media operates in India. The Court emphatically upheld the Sahyog portal as a lawful administrative tool — "an instrument of public good" — while reiterating that online expression is "hedged by restrictions."

What's the Sahyog portal? It's a centralized system launched by India's Home Ministry in March 2024 that lets government agencies send content takedown notices directly to social media platforms. Think of it as a digital compliance machine.

X called it a "censorship portal" and challenged its legitimacy. The court disagreed — brutally.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna didn't mince words: "The petitioner's platform is subject to a regulatory regime in the United States, its birthplace. Under the 'take down' law of that jurisdiction, it chooses to follow orders criminalising violations. Yet the same platform refuses to comply with take-down directions in this nation. This is sans countenance."

The court also noted that X, as a foreign corporation, cannot claim sanctuary under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech — but only to citizens.

The Numbers That Should Worry Indian X Users

Since the Sahyog portal launched, the Indian government has been busy:

More than half of these URLs, or 566, were flagged for "disturbing public order." This was followed by 124 for targeting political and public figures.

Here's the kicker: only 14 of the 91 notices were related to alleged criminal activity such as promotion of betting apps, impersonation of official handles with potential to cause financial fraud and circulating child sexual abuse material.

The bulk of takedowns? Political speech, satire, and criticism.

What the Digital Services Act Actually Requires

For those keeping score, here's what platforms like X must do under the DSA:

For All Platforms:

1. Remove illegal content when notified
2. Explain why content was removed
3. Allow users to appeal decisions

For Very Large Platforms (45+ million EU users):

1. Assess and mitigate "systemic risks"
2. Provide researcher access to public data
3. Maintain transparent ad repositories
4. Avoid "dark patterns" (deceptive design)
5. Submit to independent audits

The biggest online platforms — those with over 45 million monthly users in the EU — play a significant role in our societies and democracies. They must therefore follow specific rules to ensure they do not pose unintentional risks to us, such as amplifying illegal content and shaping opinion at scale.

X clearly qualifies. And it's clearly not complying.

The Developer Angle: Why This Matters Beyond Politics

If you're an Indian developer who relied on Twitter's API for research, analytics, or app development, you already know the pain.

In March 2023, the company removed what had previously been free access to Twitter's API. In its place, Musk instigated a paid access regime that started at $42,000 a month — immediately pricing out almost all academics.

The free tier that powered thousands of research projects, sentiment analysis tools, and social listening apps? Gone. Overnight.

Current pricing:

1. Basic: $100/month for 10,000 tweets
2. Pro: $5,000/month for 2 million tweets
3. Enterprise: Custom pricing (read: expensive)

This isn't just inconvenient — it's part of why the EU fined X. Academic researchers are complaining that X has repeatedly refused them access to its API, limiting their ability to conduct studies on the platform.

The DSA specifically requires platforms to provide researcher access under Article 40. X's response? Deny applications, then offer the $42,000/month paid tier as an alternative.

What Happens Next

X is now operating on two clocks:

EU Timeline:

1. 60 working days to fix the blue checkmark system
2. 90 working days to submit action plans for ad transparency and researcher access
3. Two more investigations ongoing (illegal content handling, algorithm manipulation)
4. Potential additional fines if non-compliance continues

India Timeline:

1. X appealing Karnataka HC decision to Supreme Court
2. 91 takedown notices (and counting) from Sahyog portal
3. Other platforms (Google, Meta, Microsoft) already integrated with Sahyog
4. X remains the only major holdout

Two other investigations against X are still ongoing, one regarding how X is dealing with illegal content, how users can flag it, and how efficiently the platform deletes it. Another one focuses on their algorithm recommendation — especially when it comes to terrorism radicalisation and during election campaigns.

The Bigger Picture: Tech Sovereignty vs. Free Speech

Here's the uncomfortable truth neither side wants to admit:

The EU's position: Platforms must be transparent and accountable. Users deserve protection from manipulation and deception. That's not censorship — it's consumer protection.

Musk's position: Any regulation is an attack on free speech. Platforms should self-govern. Government involvement inevitably leads to censorship.

India's position: Platforms operating in India must follow Indian laws. Foreign companies cannot claim constitutional protections meant for citizens. Content that "disturbs public order" can be removed without judicial review.

Each position has merit. Each has obvious flaws.

The EU's rules are detailed but enforcement has been slow. Musk's "free speech absolutism" evaporates when dealing with countries like Turkey and Russia, where X has a much higher compliance rate with government requests. India's framework provides efficiency but minimal accountability.

What's clear is that the era of platforms operating as borderless, self-regulated entities is ending. Whether that's good or bad depends entirely on who's doing the regulating — and what they're regulating it for.

Common Questions About X's Legal Troubles

Is X going to be banned in India?

Unlikely in the immediate future. But X faces mounting pressure. It's the only major platform refusing to integrate with the Sahyog portal, and the Karnataka HC ruling suggests Indian courts will side with the government on compliance issues.

Can Indian users still use X if it leaves the EU?

Yes, but with caveats. If X pulls out of Europe (which would be an extreme response), Indian users wouldn't be directly affected. However, the precedent would embolden other governments to take harder stances.

What does the €120 million fine mean in Indian rupees?

Approximately ₹1,050 crore at current exchange rates. For perspective, that's about what a mid-sized Indian IT company generates in annual revenue.

Will X's blue checkmark system change?

The EU is demanding it does. X must either verify identities properly or stop calling paid accounts "verified." The 60-day clock is ticking.

How does India's IT Act compare to the EU's DSA?

India's approach under Section 79(3)(b) is faster but offers fewer safeguards. The EU requires proportionality and appeals processes. India's Sahyog portal allows rapid takedowns with limited judicial oversight.

The €120 million fine is just the beginning. Between the EU's ongoing investigations, India's court battles, and the growing global consensus that platforms need accountability, X is facing a multi-front war it shows no signs of winning.

Musk can call for the EU to be abolished. He can appeal in India's Supreme Court. He can claim free speech is under attack.

But here's the reality: X operates in these jurisdictions because it wants access to these markets. And markets come with rules.

The question isn't whether X will comply. It's whether it can afford not to.

This article will be updated when X responds to the EU compliance deadlines or when the Supreme Court of India takes up the appeal.