FAQEU DSA

DSA VLOP Risk Assessment Article 34 FAQ

Article 34 requires each and VLOSE to assess service-specific when the enhanced duties begin, at least annually afterward, and before deploying functionality likely to critically affect those risks.

This FAQ connects risk categories, mitigation choices, audit preparation, public reporting, researcher access, and evidence records.

Author
Sorena AI
Published
May 9, 2026
Updated
Jul 25, 2026
Overview

Under the EU Digital Services Act, designated very large online platforms and very large online search engines must identify, analyse, and assess linked to their services. The assessment should feed Article 35 mitigation measures, the internal compliance function, independent audits, public transparency reporting, and records preserved for regulator review.

Search this module

Find a question or answer quickly

4 of 4 questions
Question 1

What does a DSA VLOP risk assessment have to cover?

Article 34 requires designated VLOPs and VLOSEs to assess that are specific to their services and proportionate to the severity and probability of those risks. The risk categories include dissemination of illegal content, negative effects on fundamental rights, negative effects on civic discourse, electoral processes and public security, and negative effects involving gender-based violence, public health, minors, and physical or mental well-being.

The first assessment is due by the date the enhanced obligations begin to apply to the designated service, which Article 33 sets at four months after notification of the designation decision. The provider must reassess at least once every year thereafter and before deploying functionality likely to have a critical impact on the identified risks.

The assessment also has to examine how the design and operation of the service influence those risks. For a practical record, map each risk to the affected surface, such as search ranking, recommender systems, ads delivery, content moderation, notice handling, marketplace listings, user reporting, account creation, age assurance, or high-reach sharing features.

  • Record the designated service, or VLOSE status, and the service surfaces covered by the assessment.
  • Create one line per Article 34 risk category and explain whether the risk is present, foreseeable, not applicable, or still under investigation.
  • For each present or foreseeable risk, capture the triggering product feature, user group, geography or language market, data source, severity, probability, and uncertainty.
  • Include intentional manipulation, inauthentic use, automated exploitation, and rapid amplification where they can influence the risk profile.

Does the DSA require a or VLOSE to run an Article 34 systemic risk assessment every year?

Yes. Article 34 requires VLOPs and VLOSEs to carry out the risk assessment at least once every year and also before deploying functionalities that are likely to have a critical impact on the identified .

Question 2

How should the risk assessment connect to Article 35 mitigation?

The assessment should not stop at a risk register. Article 35 requires reasonable, proportionate, and effective mitigation measures tailored to the specific Article 34 risks, with particular consideration for fundamental-rights impacts.

Useful mitigation records show why a control was selected or rejected. Examples supported by the DSA include adapting service design or functioning, recommender systems, terms enforcement, content moderation processes, notice-processing resources, advertising systems, crisis response, and child-protection tools such as age verification, parental controls, abuse-signalling tools, or support tools where appropriate.

  • Link each material Article 34 risk to one or more Article 35 mitigation measures and a control owner.
  • State whether the mitigation changes the product interface, ranking or recommendation logic, ads process, moderation workflow, staffing model, policy enforcement, user support, or child-safety control.
  • Document residual risk after mitigation and explain why the measure is proportionate to the risk and to affected fundamental rights.
  • For election-related risks, align the assessment with Commission Article 35 guidance on electoral-process mitigation where the service can affect civic discourse or elections.
Question 3

What evidence should the VLOP or VLOSE keep?

Keep evidence that lets the provider, auditor, Commission, and Digital Services Coordinator understand how the assessment was performed and why the mitigation response fits the risk. Article 34 requires supporting documents to be preserved for at least three years and communicated to the Commission and the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment on request.

A practical evidence pack should include the risk-assessment report, risk register, source data, internal controls, product and policy change logs, governance approvals, consultations used to design mitigations, and links to audit workpapers or audit implementation actions where available.

  • Assessment inputs: incident trends, notice and action data, statement-of-reasons data, user complaints, moderation quality results, recommender or ranking metrics, ad repository checks, integrity investigations, and relevant researcher findings.
  • Methodology records: risk definitions, severity and probability scoring, impacted groups, regional or linguistic factors, assumptions tested, and uncertainty notes.
  • Mitigation records: selected controls, rejected alternatives, deployment dates, owner, control tests, residual-risk rationale, and management-body or compliance-function approvals.
  • Audit records: auditor information requests, internal-control evidence, algorithmic-system tests where relevant, audit conclusions, operational recommendations, and implementation-report actions.
Question 4

How do audits, supervision, and publication fit into the assessment cycle?

The risk assessment feeds a public accountability cycle. VLOPs and VLOSEs are subject to independent audits at least once a year. After receiving an audit report, they must make public the risk-assessment report, mitigation measures, audit report, audit implementation report, and information about consultations no later than three months after receipt, subject to the DSA rules on confidential information. Taken together, the annual audit requirement and the three-month publication deadline place the first publication no later than 15 months after the enhanced obligations begin to apply to the service.

Supervision is not limited to public reports. The DSA also links the assessment to the compliance function, management-body oversight, Commission and Digital Services Coordinator access to supporting documents, data access for vetted researchers, and independent audit testing of internal controls and mitigation effectiveness.

  • Plan the Article 34 assessment, Article 35 mitigation record, audit evidence, and Article 42 public-reporting package as one annual control cycle.
  • Keep a versioned non-confidential report path separate from confidential evidence used by auditors and regulators.
  • Track audit recommendations by obligation, owner, due date, implementation status, evidence link, and whether the recommendation changes the next risk assessment.
  • Use Commission guidance, European Board material, public reports from comparable services, and vetted-research outputs as external signals when updating audit-risk and systemic-risk assumptions.
Recommended next step

Prepare DSA risk assessment records before the audit cycle closes

Sorena can help structure Article 34 risk lines, Article 35 mitigation owners, audit evidence requests, public-reporting links, and cited-source review prompts for VLOP and VLOSE compliance work.

Primary sources

References and citations

eur-lex.europa.eu5 citations
Referenced sections
  • Primary legal source for Article 34 systemic risk assessment, Article 35 mitigation, Article 37 audits, Article 40 data access, Article 41 compliance function, and Article 42 public reporting.
  • Articles 33 and 34 set the initial application date, annual risk-assessment duty, systemic risk categories, critical-functionality reassessment trigger, and three-year supporting-document retention rule.
  • Article 35 is the binding source for reasonable, proportionate, and effective mitigation measures tailored to Article 34 systemic risks.
Show 2 more
  • Article 34 supports the three-year preservation duty for risk-assessment documents; Article 40 supports researcher access for systemic-risk research and mitigation assessment.
  • Articles 37, 40, 41, and 42 set the annual independent audit, researcher-access, compliance-function, three-month publication, and first-publication timing rules.
"This risk assessment shall be specific to their services"
More quoted passages
"at least once every year thereafter"
"reasonable, proportionate and effective mitigation measures"
"preserve the supporting documents"
"at least once a year"
eur-lex.europa.eu3 citations
Referenced sections
  • Binding audit framework for how auditors assess VLOP/VLOSE compliance with Article 34 risk assessments and Article 35 mitigation measures.
  • Audit regulation source for the evidence auditors should analyse when assessing Article 34 risk assessments and Article 35 mitigation measures.
  • Audit regulation source for methodology, audit evidence, audit-risk analysis, and specific audit checks for Article 34 and Article 35.
"audits conducted in accordance with Article 37"
More quoted passages
"risk assessment report for the relevant audited period"
"Specific methodologies for auditing compliance"
digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu3 citations
Referenced sections
  • Commission transparency source for public risk-assessment, mitigation, audit, and audit-implementation report publication by VLOPs and VLOSEs.
  • Commission transparency page explaining public risk-assessment, mitigation, audit, and audit-implementation reporting by VLOPs and VLOSEs.
  • Commission page supporting the three-month publication link between audit reports, risk-assessment reports, mitigation measures, audit implementation reports, and consultation information.
"Risk assessment and audit reports"
More quoted passages
"at the latest three months after"
digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu2 citations
Referenced sections
  • Commission guidance source for Article 35 mitigation of systemic risks connected to electoral processes.
  • Commission guidance source for applying Article 35 mitigation to systemic risks that may affect electoral processes.
"mitigation of systemic risks for electoral processes"
More quoted passages
"specific risks linked to electoral processes"
digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu2 citations
Referenced sections
  • Commission guidance source for child-safety measures relevant to assessing and mitigating risks to minors on online platforms.
  • Commission guidance source for child-safety measures that may inform minor-risk mitigation, including recommender changes, private defaults, abuse reporting, and excessive-use controls.
"protect children from online risks"
More quoted passages
"proportionate and appropriate measures to protect children"
digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu2 citations
Referenced sections
  • Commission overview for VLOP/VLOSE designation threshold, four-month compliance effect after designation, systemic risk duties, annual audit, data sharing, researcher access, recommender choice, and ad repository obligations.
  • Commission overview confirming the 45 million monthly EU user threshold, designation effect, and the enhanced systemic-risk duties for VLOPs and VLOSEs.
"The designation triggers specific rules"
More quoted passages
"over 45 million users in the EU"
Show all related guides (35)

DSA Applicability Test: classify intermediary services, platforms, marketplaces, VLOPs and VLOSEs

A cited EU Digital Services Act applicability test for classifying intermediary services, hosting services, online platforms, marketplaces, VLOPs and VLOSEs.

DSA Article 28 minors protection guide for online platforms

EU Digital Services Act guide to Article 28 minors protection: platform scope, child-safety measures, targeted ads limits, recommender controls, and official source evidence.

DSA Complaint and Dispute Workflows for Online Platforms

Build DSA complaint, appeal, statement-of-reasons, and out-of-court dispute workflows for online platform moderation decisions.

DSA crisis response for VLOPs and VLOSEs

EU Digital Services Act crisis response guide for VLOPs and VLOSEs: Article 36 Commission decisions, Article 48 crisis protocols, mitigation, governance, requests for information, and records.

DSA Dark Patterns: interface design checks for online platforms

Article 25 DSA guidance for reviewing online platform interfaces for deceptive, manipulative, or choice-distorting design patterns.

DSA Enforcement and Penalties in the EU

How Digital Services Act enforcement works: Commission and Digital Services Coordinator roles, VLOP and VLOSE investigations, fines, periodic penalty payments, and evidence readiness.

DSA Marketplace Trader Traceability Guide

EU Digital Services Act guide for online marketplaces collecting, checking, displaying, storing, and evidencing trader traceability information.

DSA notice and action plus statements of reasons guide

A source-cited Digital Services Act guide for notice intake, moderation decisions, statements of reasons, DSA Transparency Database submission, complaints, appeals, trusted flaggers, and records.

DSA Notice and Action Workflow for Hosting Services and Online Platforms

A source-cited DSA notice-and-action workflow covering notice intake, completeness checks, trusted flaggers, decisions, user communications, statements of reasons, appeals, and records.

DSA researcher data access for VLOPs and VLOSEs

Article 40 DSA guide to vetted researcher access for VLOPs and VLOSEs under Regulation (EU) 2025/2050: requests, data catalogues, security, deadlines, and records.

DSA service tier classifier for platforms, marketplaces, VLOPs and VLOSEs

Classify a digital service under the EU Digital Services Act as intermediary, hosting, online platform, marketplace, VLOP or VLOSE, with EU recipient-count evidence and obligation outputs.

DSA statement of reasons log workflow for online platforms

Build a DSA statement of reasons log for moderation decisions, Transparency Database submission, complaint links, retention, and QA controls.

DSA transparency report template fields and cadence

A source-cited template outline for Digital Services Act transparency reports, covering applicable service tiers, reporting periods, CSV/XLSX format, retention, statement-of-reasons links, and required evidence tables.

DSA Transparency Reporting Obligations by Provider Tier

A source-cited guide to EU Digital Services Act transparency reports, active-recipient publication, statements-of-reasons submissions, VLOP/VLOSE reports, templates, cadence, and evidence.

DSA VLOP and VLOSE Risk Assessments and Mitigation Guide

A source-cited guide to Digital Services Act systemic risk assessments, mitigation measures, audits, transparency reports, data access, and governance evidence for VLOPs and VLOSEs.

DSA VLOP Audit Pack Workflow: Risk, Mitigation, Audit, and Transparency Records

Build a DSA VLOP or VLOSE audit pack covering Article 34 risk assessments, Article 35 mitigations, independent-audit evidence, transparency reports, data access, and compliance governance.

DSA vs DMA Platform Rules

Compare the EU Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act by scope, designation thresholds, obligations, enforcement, evidence, and practical team ownership.

DSA vs GDPR: online-platform governance and personal-data obligations

Compare the EU Digital Services Act and EU GDPR by scope, ads, recommenders, minors, transparency, complaints, enforcement, and evidence.

DSA vs P2B Regulation: EU platform obligations compared

Compare the EU Digital Services Act with the Platform-to-Business Regulation for platform scope, business-user terms, content moderation, ranking transparency, complaints, enforcement, and evidence.

DSA vs Terrorist Content Online Regulation: notice-and-action vs removal orders

Compare DSA content-governance duties with the EU Terrorist Content Online Regulation removal-order workflow for scope, timing, evidence, authorities, and team ownership.

EU Digital Services Act checklist for platforms and hosting services

An official source DSA checklist for classifying service tiers, notice-and-action, statements of reasons, complaints, transparency reports, ads, recommenders, trader traceability, VLOP/VLOSE duties, and evidence records.

EU Digital Services Act Compliance Guide

DSA compliance guide for intermediary services, hosting providers, online platforms, marketplaces, and VLOP/VLOSE teams: obligations, controls, and evidence to keep.

EU Digital Services Act FAQ: DSA scope, platform duties, VLOPs, reports, and penalties

Concise EU Digital Services Act FAQ covering intermediary-service scope, active-recipient thresholds, illegal-content notices, statements of reasons, trader traceability, recommender transparency, systemic-risk duties, reporting, penalties, and complaints.

EU Digital Services Act penalties and fines: caps and enforcement roles

DSA penalty caps and enforcement roles: Member State fines, Commission fines for VLOPs and VLOSEs, 1% procedural fines, and 5% periodic penalty payments.

EU Digital Services Act requirements by service tier

Overview of DSA obligations for intermediary services, hosting providers, online platforms, marketplaces, VLOPs and VLOSEs, including notices, complaints, ads, transparency reports, audits, data access and enforcement.

EU Digital Services Act service types and scope

Classify DSA service scope across mere conduit, caching, hosting, online platforms, marketplaces, online search engines, and VLOP/VLOSE threshold duties.

EU DSA deadlines and compliance calendar: application dates, reporting cycles, and VLOP clocks

Calendar view of cited EU Digital Services Act dates: full application, user-number publication, VLOP/VLOSE designation clocks, statements of reasons, and transparency reporting cycles.

EU DSA Transparency Calendar: reports, statements of reasons and user counts

Build a DSA transparency calendar for annual reports, statement-of-reasons database submissions, active-recipient updates, and VLOP/VLOSE audit touchpoints.

EU DSA vs UK Online Safety Act: scope, duties, regulator, and evidence

Compare the EU Digital Services Act and UK Online Safety Act for platform scope, risk assessments, child protection, transparency, regulators, enforcement, and owners.