Landmark Ruling: German Court Orders X to Grant Data Access for Hungary Election Analysis

A significant legal victory for digital transparency has been achieved as a German appellate court has ruled that the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) must provide vetted researchers with access to publicly available data concerning Hungary’s parliamentary election. This decision, issued by the Berlin Court of Appeal (Kammergericht), is being hailed as a critical test case for the enforcement of the European Union’s landmark Digital Services Act (DSA) and establishes a powerful precedent for researcher access to platform data across the bloc.

The ruling directly addresses a conflict between a major tech platform’s operational policies and the EU’s new regulatory framework, which mandates that very large online platforms (VLOPs) like X facilitate access to their data for independent researchers studying systemic risks. These risks include the spread of disinformation, hate speech, and potential election interference. The case centers on data related to the high-stakes Hungarian parliamentary election held on April 12, 2024—an election widely seen as a critical referendum on the long-term rule of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party.

This article provides a comprehensive, pedagogical breakdown of the court’s decision, its legal and political context, the implications for the Digital Services Act, and what it means for researchers, platforms, and democratic integrity in Europe.

Key Points: The Core of the German Court’s Decision

• Binding Order: The Berlin Court of Appeal has issued a final, immediately enforceable order requiring X to provide data to two German non-governmental organizations (NGOs): Democracy Reporting International (DRI) and the Society for Civil Rights (Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte, GFF).
• Scope of Data: The required data includes metrics on the reach and engagement of posts related to Hungary’s parliamentary election. This is not about private user messages but about publicly observable content and its dissemination.
• Legal Basis: The ruling is grounded in the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), specifically the provisions that obligate VLOPs to grant access to their data for the purpose of assessing systemic risks to society.
• Jurisdiction Established: The court overturned a lower court’s finding that jurisdiction lay solely in Ireland (X’s EU headquarters). It ruled that German courts have jurisdiction when the denial of data impedes public-interest research conducted by German-based entities.
• No Further Appeal: According to the plaintiffs’ legal counsel, no further ordinary appeal (Revision) is possible against this decision, making it a final and binding judgment in Germany.
• Enforcement: If X fails to comply, the court order can be enforced through the imposition of penalty payments (Zwangsgeld).
• Precedent-Setting: This is the first ruling of its kind in Germany to compel a platform to share data under the DSA’s research access provisions, setting a direct legal precedent for other EU member states.

Background: The Legal and Political Landscape

The Digital Services Act (DSA) and Researcher Access

Enacted in 2022 and fully applicable since February 2024 for the largest platforms, the DSA represents the EU’s most ambitious effort to regulate digital services. A cornerstone of the regulation for VLOPs (those with over 45 million monthly active users in the EU) is Article 40, which requires them to provide “vetted researchers” with access to data necessary to study “systemic risks.” These risks are broadly defined and include:

• The dissemination of illegal content (e.g., hate speech, terrorist material).
• The negative effects on civic discourse and electoral processes.
• Harm to public health, fundamental rights, and democratic processes.

The DSA mandates that this access must be “timely, transparent and complete.” Platforms are required to set up a “data access interface” for this purpose. However, the implementation has been contentious, with many researchers and NGOs reporting that platforms, including X, have imposed prohibitive terms, high costs, and technical barriers that effectively block meaningful research.

The Plaintiffs: Civil Society’s Push for Accountability

Democracy Reporting International (DRI) and the Society for Civil Rights (GFF) are German-based NGOs focused on human rights, democracy, and civil liberties. They have been at the forefront of efforts to use the DSA’s provisions to hold platforms accountable. Their goal was to analyze the information environment surrounding the Hungarian election, a vote with profound implications for EU politics, given Hungary’s frequent clashes with Brussels over rule-of-law and democratic standards.

Prior to this case, the same NGOs had attempted to obtain similar data from X for analysis of the 2025 German federal election. In that earlier instance, a lower court ruled it lacked jurisdiction, deferring to the Irish courts where X’s EU headquarters is located. That ruling highlighted the complex jurisdictional questions surrounding the DSA’s enforcement.

The Hungarian Election Context

The April 12, 2024, Hungarian parliamentary election was a pivotal political event. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, in power since 2010, faced a united opposition coalition for the first time. Observ