Lunch & Learn #5

The inner workings of an out-of-court dispute settlement body: a conversation with Thomas Hughes

The inner workings of an out-of-court dispute settlement body: a conversation with Thomas Hughes

7 octobre 2025
12h30 - 13h30

Les Lunch and Learn sont des rendez-vous mensuels en ligne, organisés tous les premiers mardis du mois sur le temps du déjeuner, alliant apprentissage et convivialité. Ils permettent une rencontre courte mais instructive entre un·e expert·e et un public intéressé. L’intervenant·e présente en une vingtaine de minutes un sujet lié à la modération des contenus, avant d’échanger avec le public pendant environ trente minutes.

Le cinquième Lunch and Learn, intitulé « The inner workings of an out-of-court dispute settlement body: a conversation with Thomas Hughes » se déroulera en anglais, voici la description de l’évènement directement en anglais : 

« Curtailing illegal and harmful speech online is a major challenge. Regulatory approaches at the regional and national level seek to prevent “torrents of hate coming over the Internet”, as French President Emmanuel Macron put it in 2018. Yet, in moderating content, platforms make mistakes. A 2024 report by The Future of Free Speech found that “a substantial majority (87.5% to 99.7%) of deleted comments on Facebook and YouTube in France, Germany, and Sweden were legally permissible, suggesting that platforms, pages, or channels may be over-removing content to avoid regulatory penalties”. Under the EU Digital Services Act, users are given the possibility to challenge content moderation decisions by lodging a complaint to an out-of-court dispute settlement (ODS) body. But to what extent do these mechanisms truly empower users to challenge platforms’ content decisions? How do decisions taken by these bodies contribute to the enforcement and effectiveness of the DSA? With Thomas Hughes, CEO of Appeals Centre, one of the certified ODS body pursuant to Article 21 of the DSA, we will explore the inner workings of these bodies, including the value of these decisions for the DSA machinery and their potential contribution to the definition of “systemic risks”. »