The Monetization Black Box:
Why Platform Terms are Failing Creators Under the DSA
Published: July 22, 2026
Content creators and publishers power the world’s largest social media platforms. And yet, they often operate under opaque legal agreements that can change without notice or result in sudden demonetization. With the implementation of Article 14 of the Digital Services Act (DSA), platforms are now legally required to provide terms that are clear, transparent, and user-friendly.
Our latest audit at WHAT TO FIX reveals a troubling reality: not a single major platform’s Monetization Terms are fully compliant with the DSA, and many are failing creators on the most basic levels of transparency.
METHODOLOGY
Our ‘Monetization Terms’ audit looked at six Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs):
YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and X.
YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and X.
We rated their applicable monetization terms against the key requirements of the DSA, using the following template. We gave platforms an opportunity to review and clarify our findings. All declined to comment.
RATINGS
The results of our audit are stark. Instagram and TikTok meet only 1 out of 8 DSA requirements, while even the "top" performers, Snapchat, only manages to meet half of the criteria.
The issues start with simply finding the rules. YouTube’s monetization terms are completely inaccessible to the public; they can only be viewed by users who are already logged in and meet specific eligibility requirements. Even when terms are "public," they are rarely translated correctly. For instance, while Instagram offers a Latvian and Gaelic interface, the legal terms for those languages simply display the text in English.
MAIN FINDINGS
Broad discretionary powers
One of the most alarming findings is the broad, unchecked power platforms reserve for themselves. Every platform we audited used clauses granting them "sole discretion" to enforce restrictions, withhold payments, or terminate access to services.
TikTok’s Subscription Service Agreement allows them to take action "for convenience".X (formerly Twitter) explicitly tells creators they should have "no expectation" that any revenue share percentage will continue to apply over time, making financial planning nearly impossible for professional publishers.Instagram includes broad liability exemptions, stating they are not responsible for legal claims arising from account suspensions or content removal.
Monetization Decisions black box
Despite the DSA’s clear requirement for platforms to disclose the procedures, measures, and tools used for content moderation—including the role of human vs. algorithmic review—none of the audited platforms provided this information. For creators, this means their livelihood is often at the mercy of a "black box" algorithm with no clear explanation of how decisions are made or how to effectively appeal them.
Unfair Financial Terms
All audited platforms displayed terms which may be regarded as unfair towards creators/publishers, and which could violate EU laws and regulations beyond the DSA.
See select examples
- Excessive discretion on pricing determination - ‘We may pay you a share of the revenue we have earned from the sale of Subscriptions to access your account at a rate which will depend, in X’s discretion, on several factors.’ (X)
- Excessive liability exemptions - ‘We are not responsible for any unavailability, interruptions, errors, defects, loss, or inaccuracy or corruption of data with respect to the Program or its features.’(Facebook) |
- Restrictions on legal remedies - ‘To the extent permitted by law, you also waive the right to participate as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class action, collective action or representative action proceeding (X)’
- Unilateral contract changes - ‘If at any time you don't agree to any changes to these Monetization Terms, you must stop participating in the Program by disabling the relevant setting in My Profile’ (Snap)
- Non-disclosure - ‘You will not issue or permit any other party to issue any press release or otherwise make any public statements or disclosures (including via online media) regarding these Terms, the transactions contemplated by these Terms or consummated hereunder or about the relationship of the parties without the prior written approval of Meta.’ (Instagram)
- Non-disparagement - ‘We may temporarily or permanently suspend or terminate your access to this Program if (i) you become involved in any situation or occurrence which reflects unfavourably upon you or TikTok (including the Platform or the Program); or (ii) you make any derogatory public statement or comment concerning TikTok (including the Platform or the Program).(TikTok)
RECOMMENDATIONS: What Needs to Change?
At WHAT TO FIX, we believe that platforms' monetization governance must shift toward accountability. To meet the standards of the DSA, platforms must provide:
Clearly understandable and easily accessible Terms - platforms should ensure that their monetization terms are prominently featured in relevant sections of their websites, and professionally translated for all markets where the services are available. They should also provide concise, standalone summaries.
Fair and predictable Enforcement - platforms should have terms that are fair and clearly communicate applicable monetization and payout restrictions, as well as the procedures, measures and tools used for their enforcement.
Adequate access to Reparations - platforms' terms should clearly identify pathways to access remedy, including, where relevant, compensation.
Maintain public change-logs - platforms should keep public records of the different versions of their legal terms to prevent "stealth" updates to pay-out structures.Want to help us fix monetization governance? Read the full audit and reach out at hello@whattofix.tech
All items
WHAT TO FIX’s Recommendations for the Digital Fairness Act proposal
Open Letter: Influencer Marketing Rules Must Encompass All Platform Monetisation Services
WHAT TO FIX’s Submission to the Copyright Directive Consultation
WHAT TO FIX’s Submission to Article 50 AI Act Consultation
WHAT TO FIX’s Submission to the European Democracy Shield Consultation
WHAT TO FIX’s Submission to Ofcom (OSA Transparency Notices)
De-Risking Social Media Monetization: Rating Platforms’ Coverage of Monetisation-Related Risks
Democracy Shield: WHAT TO FIX’s Position Paper
WHAT TO FIX Urges Transparency into Social Media Monetization in Exchange of Views with European Parliament
EU Democracy Shield: WHAT TO FIX’s recommendations to the European Parliament
Issue Brief: New Incentives, Evolving Threats
WHAT TO FIX’s Submission to the European Board on Digital Services’ First Annual Report On Systemic Risks
Monetization Principles: Paving the Way towards Responsible Monetization Governance
WHAT TO FIX’s Submission To The DSA’s Article 40 Delegated Act