Article 16
Notice and action mechanisms
Evaluation Scenarios (4 total)
Paragraph 1
Providers of hosting services shall put mechanisms in place to allow any individual or entity to notify them of the presence on their service of specific items of information that the individual or entity considers to be illegal content. Those mechanisms shall be easy to access and user-friendly, and shall allow for the submission of notices exclusively by electronic means.
Obligations (1)
Evaluation Scenarios (1)
Given
A browser accessing the platform's home page as an anonymous visitor (not logged in)
When
- We access an arbitrary user-generated content item (e.g. post, video, comment, or other item) that is visible without logging in
- We navigate to locate and access the notice submission mechanism for reporting illegal content from that item
- We attempt to reach the report submission control as an anonymous visitor and observe whether submission proceeds or the flow redirects to a login or account-creation page
Then
- An anonymous visitor who is not logged in can reach the report submission control and submit a notice of illegal content without being redirected to a login or account-creation page
- The notice mechanism (form, modal, chat link, or other electronic channel) is reachable from the content item page within two clicks or navigation steps
- The mechanism accepts standard electronic submissions (web form input, file uploads) without requiring unsupported formats
- Submission instructions are written in clear language and available in the provider's supported languages
Full scenario text
Notice mechanism is usable by anonymous visitors — where user-generated content is visible without logging in, an anonymous visitor must be able to actually submit a report of illegal content, not merely discover a report link that then demands sign-in. Grading note — for this obligation a login or sign-up wall in front of *submitting* a report is a genuine compliance gap, because Article 16(1) requires the mechanism to be available to "any individual or entity" regardless of whether they hold an account. The first THEN below therefore asserts anonymous submission directly - if the report entry point is discoverable but submission is gated behind login, that THEN fails and is the observed gap — grade it a fail, do not pass on discoverability alone and do not downgrade to inconclusive merely because a real submission could not be completed (the login wall is itself the gradeable observation). A clearly published reporting email address that works without login also satisfies the anonymous-submission THEN (recommend, but do not require, a structured in-product webform); this is not gated on any user-count estimate. Grading note on reporter contact details — do NOT treat a missing, optional, or absent contact/email field as a compliance gap, and never recommend that the platform start collecting contact details from anonymous reporters. Article 16(1) says nothing about what the form collects. Article 16(2) requires only that the mechanism "enable and facilitate" a reporter providing their name and email — never that the provider compel or collect it — and it expressly exempts reports involving the offences in Directive 2011/93/EU Articles 3-7 (child sexual abuse material) from that element, so the DSA positively mandates anonymous reporting in at least one category; a form that forced contact details on every reporter would breach that carve-out. Consistently, the confirmation-of-receipt duty in Article 16(4) applies only "where the notice contains the electronic contact information" of the submitter — a conditional that presupposes notices arriving without it. Field-level facilitation of the notice elements is graded by dsa-16-2-notice-requirement-support-v1, not here; this scenario grades reach-and-submit only.
Platform Types
Paragraph 2
The mechanisms referred to in paragraph 1 shall be such as to facilitate the submission of sufficiently precise and adequately substantiated notices. To that end, the providers of hosting services shall take the necessary measures to enable and to facilitate the submission of notices containing all of the following elements:
Obligations (1)
Evaluation Scenarios (1)
Given
A browser accessing the platform's home page anonymously
When
- We access an arbitrary user-generated content item (e.g. post, video, comment, or other item) that is visible without logging in
- We locate and open the notice submission mechanism for reporting illegal content from that item — including any in-content menu such as a "⋯", "More", or "Report" affordance — falling back to a general contact channel (form, chat, email link) only if no per-content path exists
- We inspect how the mechanism guides or enables users to provide the required information
Then
- The mechanism facilitates providing an explanation of why the content is believed to be illegal (e.g., dedicated field, prompt, or clear instructions requesting this information)
- The mechanism facilitates providing the content location such as a URL or other identifier (e.g., dedicated field, or instructions asking the user to include it)
- The mechanism facilitates providing reporter name and email, except for reports involving child sexual abuse material (Directive 2011/93/EU Articles 3-7)
- The mechanism facilitates including a good-faith statement confirming accuracy and completeness of the report (e.g., checkbox, explicit instruction, or equivalent)
- The mechanism allows attaching or including supporting evidence where necessary
Full scenario text
Notice mechanism facilitates submission of sufficiently precise and substantiated notices containing all required elements. Important — the law requires facilitation, not a specific dedicated form or template. A general contact channel (chat, email, support form) that allows users to provide the required information is a weaker but acceptable form of facilitation. Findings should distinguish between "no mechanism at all for reporting illegal content" and "no form or template specifically dedicated to reporting illegal content, but alternative channels exist." The primary reporting path on most platforms is per-content — reached from an individual item via an in-content menu (e.g. a "⋯", "More", or "Report" affordance), not a generic site-wide "Report a problem" or feedback form — so locate reporting from a content item before judging a generic contact form. Confidence hedge — this scenario grades whether the mechanism *facilitates the four required elements*. If the reporting flow can be located but its individual field-level facilitation could not be fully inspected because the form's fields sit behind a login, report low confidence on that field-level facilitation rather than asserting the fields are inadequate; distinguish "the fields could not be inspected" from "the fields are missing or inadequate." This hedge is strictly about field-level facilitation and does NOT extend to the separate question of anonymous access — whether an anonymous visitor can submit a report at all is graded by scenario dsa-16-1, where a login wall in front of submission is a definitive gap, not a low-confidence result. Do not import this hedge to soften a dsa-16-1-style anonymous-submission failure.
Platform Types
Paragraph 3
Notices referred to in this Article shall be considered to give rise to actual knowledge or awareness for the purposes of Article 6 in respect of the specific item of information concerned where they allow a diligent provider of hosting services to identify the illegality of the relevant activity or information without a detailed legal examination.
Obligations (1)
Evaluation Scenarios
Paragraph 4
Where the notice contains the electronic contact information of the individual or entity that submitted it, the provider of hosting services shall, without undue delay, send a confirmation of receipt of the notice to that individual or entity.
Obligations (1)
Evaluation Scenarios (1)
Given
A browser accessing the platform's home page anonymously
When
- We navigate to the notice submission mechanism
- We submit a notice through the mechanism with contact information provided
- We check for a receipt confirmation via the platform's communication channels (in-app message, chat reply, email, or other)
Then
- A confirmation of receipt is sent without undue delay (typically within minutes to hours, at most 24h) via email, in-app message, chat reply, or other electronic channel
- The confirmation acknowledges receipt of the notice and may include a reference number or tracking ID
Full scenario text
Notice submitters receive timely receipt confirmations. Prerequisite — this scenario requires that a notice submission mechanism exists and can be used (see Article 16(1)). If no mechanism exists or a notice could not be submitted, the evaluation should report low confidence rather than a definitive failure, since the receipt confirmation behavior could not be tested.
Platform Types
Paragraph 5
The provider shall also, without undue delay, notify that individual or entity of its decision in respect of the information to which the notice relates, providing information on the possibilities for redress in respect of that decision.
Obligations (1)
Upload one or more of: (a) the template of the decision-notification email sent to the person who submitted the notice, including redress options (e.g. complaint, out-of-court dispute resolution, court); (b) a real (redacted) communication that shows the same content; (c) a log extract with timestamps for decision-made and notification-sent events, so the time between the two is visible.
Evaluation Scenarios
Paragraph 6
Providers of hosting services shall process any notices that they receive under the mechanisms referred to in paragraph 1 and take their decisions in respect of the information to which the notices relate, in a timely, diligent, non-arbitrary and objective manner. Where they use automated means for that processing or decision-making, they shall include information on such use in the notification referred to in paragraph 5.
Obligations (2)
Upload the internal policy or standard-operating-procedure for reviewing reports of illegal content. It should describe (i) a commitment to timely assessment, (ii) the criteria used (including local law), and (iii) how objectivity is preserved. If available, attach a log extract showing time-to-decision for recent notices.
Evaluation Scenarios (1)
Given
A browser accessing the platform's home page anonymously
When
- We navigate to the platform's Terms and Conditions, content policy, or other public-facing policy documents
- We search for information about how the platform processes reports of illegal content
Then
- The policy describes the platform's approach to processing notices (e.g., timelines, review process, decision criteria)
- The policy states whether automated means are used in notice processing or decision-making, and if so, how this is disclosed to submitters
Full scenario text
The platform's public terms or policies describe notice processing standards and disclose whether automated means are used in processing or decision-making. Note — this scenario evaluates public policy statements, not observed behavior. If no policy statement is found about automation, this is a gap or concern, not the same as observing that automation was used without disclosure. The evaluation should report low confidence when findings are based on absence of information rather than observed non-compliance.