In preliminary findings published Nov. 6, 2026, the European Commission said TikTok’s For You feed breaches the Digital Services Act by exposing users to repeated streams of similar potentially harmful content.
TikTok disputes the findings. The company told the Associated Press that the Commission’s statements are “fundamentally inaccurate” and said it has a strong record of protecting its community while giving users control over their content experience.
The preliminary findings target the design of the feed
The Commission’s case is not focused on one post, one creator or one category of illegal content. It targets a design loop the Commission calls the “rabbit hole effect”: when a person watches or likes a video, TikTok’s system may recommend more of that same type. The Commission says that pattern can become harmful when the repeated content involves sadness, anxiety, isolation, weight loss, body image or eating disorders.
That puts the focus on systemic risk rather than individual moderation decisions. The Commission’s position is that TikTok did not adequately assess how its recommendation algorithm could lead people into those loops and did not do enough to reduce the risk once it existed.
Regulators say TikTok’s controls do not go far enough
The Commission acknowledged that TikTok has introduced measures meant to reduce rabbit holes, but said those measures are not effective enough. In particular, it said diversified recommendations do not sufficiently reduce how often similar content appears and that controls such as the “not interested” button may be outweighed when the algorithm gives more importance to viewing time.
At this stage, regulators want TikTok to redesign the For You feed by relying more on explicit user preferences, removing viewing time as a recommendation indicator, making controls easier to use and testing the algorithm regularly.
TikTok gets a chance to answer before any penalty
The findings are not a final ruling. TikTok may review the Commission’s investigation file and respond in writing, while the European Board for Digital Services will be consulted.
If the Commission’s view is confirmed, it may issue a non-compliance decision. That decision can trigger a fine proportionate to the nature, gravity, recurrence and duration of the infringement, with a maximum of 6% of the provider’s total worldwide annual turnover.
The wider TikTok investigation is building
The Nov. 6 findings are part of a formal DSA proceeding the Commission opened on Feb. 19, 2024. That proceeding has already produced preliminary findings on access to public data for researchers in October 2025, addictive design in February 2026 and protection of minors in July 2026. The advertising-transparency part of the proceeding was closed through binding commitments in December 2025.
TikTok’s own transparency figures show the size of the system under review. In August, the company said it reaches 189 million people across the European Union each month and removed about 104 million pieces of policy-violating content across video, live streams, ads, product listings and comments during the first half of 2026.
The current EU findings do not dispute those moderation figures. They challenge whether the recommendation system itself has been assessed and mitigated well enough.
The case may raise the bar for recommendation controls
For platforms and marketers watching the case, the practical takeaway is that the EU is looking past whether a platform offers a control and asking whether the control changes outcomes in a measurable way. The Commission’s example is direct: if the “not interested” button has less influence than viewing time, a control may exist without giving users effective control.
If upheld in a final decision, that standard would make recommendation systems harder to defend with surface-level settings alone. The evidence would shift toward risk assessments, algorithm testing and proof that user choices meaningfully affect what the feed shows.
The legal effect is European. The Commission materials do not say TikTok must change its Canadian service. Still, the case is relevant to Canadian businesses, creators and regulators because it shows how a major market is turning personalized feeds, viewing-time signals and user controls into enforceable safety questions.
Get new small business insights by email
Practical ideas and useful articles to help you make better business decisions.
Tech Help Canada Staff researches, writes, and reviews practical content for business owners and professionals. Our coverage spans business, marketing, SEO, technology, and the tools and systems people use to grow and operate online. We focus on clear, useful information backed by research, hands-on experience, and editorial review. Learn more about our team and editorial standards. Need help with something? Contact Us
