Streaming Tragedy Raises Questions About EU Digital Services Act Enforcement
The death of French streamer Raphaël Graven, known online as Jean Pormanove, during a 298-hour livestream on the Australian platform Kick, raises serious concerns regarding the enforcement of the European Union’s Digital Services Act. Authorities are now facing scrutiny over their failure to take action that could have prevented this tragedy, reports 24brussels.
Graven died on Sunday while streaming alongside two other participants. His controversial streams, which involved self-harm for entertainment, had previously attracted attention, culminating in a criminal complaint filed to French authorities last December.
According to the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), platforms must implement effective systems to mitigate harmful or illegal content. Non-compliance can result in fines up to 6% of global turnover or even temporary suspension for repeated offenses.
Despite these regulations, no platform has faced suspension under the DSA since its inception. Graven’s tragic death, compounded by prior notifications to authorities about his content, prompts questions about the inadequacy of responses from European regulators.
The DSA’s provisions applicable to Kick have been enforceable since February 2024. Had European regulators fully utilized their powers with respect to the less restricted content policies adopted by Kick, Graven’s fate might have been averted.
Regulatory Oversight Issues
Examining Kick’s minimal scrutiny under the DSA reveals an absence of accountability among EU agencies. The enforcement framework is tiered: the European Commission oversees compliance for the largest tech platforms, termed VLOPs (very large online platforms), which require at least 45 million monthly users.
With approximately 3.5 million monthly users in the EU, Kick does not meet this threshold and therefore falls under a decentralized enforcement model managed by national authorities acting as Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs).
As Kick operates outside the EU and has no physical presence within the region, any national DSC could theoretically intervene. However, no authority stepped in to halt Graven’s abuse being live-streamed.
Until recently, Kick had also neglected to appoint a legal representative in the EU, a critical requirement under the DSA to enhance compliance for non-EU entities. The German DSC, Bundesnetzagentur, confirmed that it requested Kick to appoint a legal representative last year. However, the agency stated it did not pursue further compliance due to the initial request being based on an “unfounded” user complaint.
In response to Graven’s death, the French DSC, Arcom, criticized Kick for not appointing a legal representative in the EU. Notably, Arcom has had the authority to address this compliance issue since being appointed as the French DSC in May of last year.
In light of these circumstances, Kick has reportedly appointed a legal representative in Malta, though Maltese authorities state that they have not been informed of this development.
Identifying Enforcement Loopholes
The circumstances surrounding Graven’s case have highlighted a significant loophole in the EU’s flagship online governance law: failing to notify a legal representative leaves non-EU-based platforms outside the scope of DSA enforcement, effectively insulating them from scrutiny by national regulators.
Kick’s failure to comply with this legal requirement has drawn criticism from Berlin-based organization Hate Aid, which advocates against digital violence. They assert that Kick also violates its own terms by permitting the distribution of illegal content linked to self-harm.
Josephine Ballon from Hate Aid remarked, “The case shows how difficult it is to enforce European platform regulation. European supervisory authorities must now demand compliance with the DSA with particular rigour.”
Following Graven’s death, Kick briefly removed his channel, but has since restored it, claiming this allows European authorities to examine the content. French regulator Arcom has mandated that Kick restrict access to the channel for general viewers, warning that it will “examine all possible actions if this is not the case.”
Kick did not respond to requests for comment at the time of publication.
