Ewa Milczarek
The debate surrounding the implementation of the Digital Services Act (DSA) in Poland has become one of the most significant recent developments in the country’s digital policy landscape. Although the DSA has been directly applicable across all EU Member States since February 2024, Poland’s national legislation intended to facilitate its enforcement was vetoed by the President. The decision has sparked an intense discussion among legal scholars, policymakers, digital rights advocates, and technology experts.
Importantly, the controversy is not about whether the DSA applies in Poland—it already does. Instead, the dispute concerns how its provisions should be enforced at the national level and what institutional safeguards should accompany this process.
What Was the Purpose of the Implementing Act?
Unlike EU directives, the Digital Services Act is a regulation and therefore applies directly throughout the European Union. Nevertheless, Member States are required to establish national enforcement structures and designate competent authorities responsible for supervising compliance.
The Polish implementing act sought to:
The proposed legislation was therefore intended primarily to operationalize the DSA rather than create new substantive obligations for online platforms.
Why Did the President Veto the Bill?
In explaining his decision, the President argued that certain provisions of the act raised serious constitutional concerns, particularly regarding the protection of freedom of expression.
According to the presidential justification, the proposed mechanisms could potentially allow public authorities to interfere excessively in decisions concerning online content moderation. Critics within the presidential administration suggested that some provisions might create risks of administrative overreach and, in extreme cases, resemble indirect forms of state censorship.
The President also argued that the legislation went beyond what was strictly necessary to implement the DSA, introducing institutional solutions that required broader constitutional debate.
Critics Call the Veto Political Rather Than Legal
The veto was met with significant criticism from legal experts and the government responsible for drafting the legislation.
Supporters of the bill argued that its primary objective was not to expand governmental control over online speech but rather to strengthen users’ procedural rights. The proposed system would have provided individuals with clearer avenues to challenge platform decisions, while also establishing the institutional framework required under EU law.
Several commentators described the presidential decision as primarily political rather than based on substantive legal objections. They emphasized that judicial oversight had already been incorporated into the legislative process, reducing concerns about arbitrary administrative interference.
What Are the Practical Consequences?
The presidential veto does not prevent the DSA from applying in Poland. However, it creates a significant institutional gap.
Without comprehensive national implementing legislation:
In practice, many enforcement activities continue to rely heavily on the European Commission, particularly regarding Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs), while the absence of a comprehensive domestic framework may reduce legal certainty for both users and service providers.
Beyond One Piece of Legislation
The Polish debate illustrates a broader constitutional dilemma that extends far beyond a single national law. Modern digital governance requires balancing several competing values simultaneously: freedom of expression, protection against illegal content, transparency of platform governance, judicial oversight, and effective regulatory enforcement. These objectives are often presented as mutually exclusive, but in reality they are deeply interconnected.
The central constitutional question is no longer whether online content should be regulated. Instead, it is who should exercise regulatory power. Should decisions about online speech remain primarily in the hands of private technology companies? Should public authorities play a greater supervisory role? Or should independent courts ultimately determine the limits of lawful online expression?
These questions are becoming central not only in Poland but across Europe. As digital platforms increasingly perform quasi-public functions by shaping access to information and public debate, the challenge is no longer simply protecting freedom of speech from state interference. It is also ensuring that the governance of digital public spaces remains transparent, accountable, and consistent with fundamental rights.
The Polish veto therefore represents more than a domestic political dispute. It reflects one of the defining constitutional challenges of the digital age: how to reconcile democratic oversight with the protection of individual freedoms in an increasingly platform-driven information ecosystem.