Separate the routes to access.
The Digital Services Act provides different mechanisms for project-specific vetted research access, access to public data and priority handling of trusted-flagger notices. These routes have different conditions and consequences. Funding for research does not itself confer access to a platform.
Payment and approval belong to different parties.
Under AliExpress’s June 2025 commitments, the company nominates and pays a monitoring trustee, while the Commission approves and supervises the role. The payment relationship does not transfer the Commission’s approval power to the company.
Read the result behind the opinion.
The FTI audit for the year ending June 2025 gave a positive opinion on the public-data access provision while reporting no approved applications. It said the applications examined were incomplete or invalid. This supports a narrower claim about assessed readiness, rather than proof that useful access was delivered.
Legitimate rejection of deficient applications and an unnecessarily difficult access process are both possible explanations. Application files, responses, opportunities to remedy defects and actual delivery would distinguish them.
Read the original source 1
Trackers help, but do not decide the dispute.
The DSA40 Collaboratory collects voluntary application reports and supports researchers. Its September 2026 tracker contained inconsistent totals, and a public AliExpress entry lacked enough identifying detail to join it to the audit cohort.
An applicant’s complaint is a lead to investigate. A platform’s positive audit is a claim to examine. Neither substitutes for the paired application and response.