WorkflowEU DSA

DSA statement of reasons log workflow

Use this workflow to record each DSA moderation decision, generate the Article 17 statement of reasons, submit platform statements to the Commission's Transparency Database, and preserve the evidence needed for complaints and reporting.

Designed for online platform trust and safety, policy, legal, data, support, and compliance teams that need a usable log rather than a generic moderation checklist.

Back to main artifact Review sources

Author

Sorena AI

Published

May 9, 2026

Updated

May 9, 2026

Sections

Structured answer sets in this page tree.

Primary sources

Cited legal and guidance references.

Publication metadata

Sorena AI

Published May 9, 2026

Updated May 9, 2026

Overview

The DSA statement of reasons log should connect a content moderation action to the user notice, the database submission, and any later complaint or dispute. The log is useful only if it captures the decision category, the Article 17 reasons, redress information, submission status, and quality checks before the decision is closed.

Section 1

When to open a statement of reasons log entry

Open a log entry whenever a hosting service imposes a DSA Article 17 restriction because user-provided information is considered illegal content or incompatible with the service's terms. The covered restrictions include content visibility restrictions, removal or disabling of access, demotion, restriction or termination of monetisation, suspension or termination of the service, and suspension or termination of the account.

For online platforms, the same log entry should also drive the Transparency Database submission required by Article 24(5). Keep the recipient-facing statement and the public database payload aligned, but remove personal data from the database submission.

Trigger source: notice under Article 16, trusted flagger notice, authority order routing, automated detection, human review, or own-initiative moderation.
Decision basis: illegal content, terms-and-conditions incompatibility, or both; record the exact legal ground or contractual rule relied on.
Restriction type: visibility, access, demotion, monetisation, service access, account status, or another Article 17 measure.
Exclusion check: mark deceptive high-volume commercial content separately because Article 17 states that the statement-of-reasons duty does not apply to that category.
Contact-detail check: Article 17 applies where the relevant electronic contact details are known to the provider.

Sources for this answer

Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act)

Article 17 identifies the moderation restrictions that require a clear and specific statement of reasons and the limited exclusions.

European Commission - DSA Transparency Database Q&A

The Commission FAQ explains that online platforms must send statements of reasons to the Commission's DSA Transparency Database.

Section 2

Fields the log should capture before the notice is sent

The log should be structured enough to produce a clear user notice without rework. Use controlled fields for reporting and searchable free-text fields for the facts, circumstances, and explanation that make the decision understandable.

Do not close the entry until the reviewer can explain what happened, why the rule applies, whether automation was used, what territory and duration apply, and how the recipient can challenge the decision.

Decision identifiers: platform service, moderation case ID, content or account reference, recipient contact status, decision timestamp, reviewer or system source, and appeal case link if one later exists.
Action details: action taken, territorial scope, duration, content URL or object identifier where available, account or service restriction scope, and monetisation impact where relevant.
Article 17 reasons: facts and circumstances relied on, notice source where relevant, automated-means flag, legal ground for alleged illegal content, terms ground for rule incompatibility, and plain-language explanation.
User redress fields: internal complaint link or instructions where Article 20 applies, out-of-court dispute settlement information where applicable, judicial redress text, and the date the recipient was informed.
Database fields: personal-data removal status, Transparency Database submission method, submission environment, API or webform status, submission ID, error response, retry owner, and production confirmation.

Sources for this answer

Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act)

Article 17 lists the minimum information that the statement of reasons must contain, including action, facts, automation, grounds, and redress.

European Commission - DSA Transparency Database Q&A

The FAQ states that database submissions can be made through an API or webform after onboarding and testing.

Section 3

Transparency Database submission workflow

For an online platform, the statement-of-reasons log should create a submission queue. Each queued item needs a validation result, personal-data check, submission method, and reconciliation status so the public database record does not drift from the user-facing decision.

The Commission FAQ describes an onboarding path through the Digital Services Coordinator, sandbox testing, and then production submission through API or webform. High-volume operations should route eligible records to the batch API endpoint rather than relying on manual webform entry.

Validate: confirm the moderation action is an Article 17 decision and that the payload contains the required statement fields.
Minimise: strip personal data from the database payload and keep redress options out of the public submission because the Commission FAQ says redress options are relevant only for the addressee.
Submit: send through the API or webform after onboarding; record whether the platform used single-record API, batch API, or webform submission.
Reconcile: store the submission ID or confirmation, error code, retry count, final status, and the date the record became available in public search or daily dumps where verified.
Monitor: compare submitted counts against internal moderation counts and investigate gaps, duplicates, rejected payloads, and records containing personal data.

Sources for this answer

European Commission - DSA Transparency Database Q&A

The FAQ explains onboarding, sandbox testing, API or webform submission, personal-data removal, and database retention behavior.

Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act)

Article 24(5) requires online platforms to submit Article 17 decisions and statements of reasons to the Commission without undue delay.

Section 4

Complaint, appeal, and dispute links to attach

The statement log should not stop at the original moderation action. It should preserve the user's challenge path because Article 17 requires clear and user-friendly redress information, and Article 20 gives recipients access to an electronic, free internal complaint-handling system for at least six months after they are informed of covered platform decisions.

When a complaint or dispute is opened, link it back to the original statement-of-reasons entry. That link is needed to report complaint outcomes, reversals, median handling time, out-of-court disputes, and implementation of dispute outcomes in transparency reports.

Internal complaint link: complaint form URL or in-product path, eligible decision category, complaint open date, complaint decision date, outcome, reversal status, and whether the complaint decision had human supervision.
Out-of-court dispute link: certified body selected, dispute reference, outcome, whether the platform implemented a reversal or partial reversal, and median-time calculation fields for reporting.
Judicial redress reference: preserve the text or link given to the recipient without treating the statement log for implementation planning.
Notice submitter link: if the decision follows a notice, connect the notice decision to the recipient statement and any complaint from the notice submitter.
Reporting mapping: classify appeal outcomes as upheld, partially reversed, reversed, omitted, median time, and, for out-of-court disputes, percentage of outcomes implemented.

Sources for this answer

Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act)

Articles 17, 20, and 21 ground the redress information, internal complaint access, human-supervised complaint decisions, and out-of-court dispute path.

European Commission - Out-of-court dispute settlement bodies under the DSA

The Commission page explains that users can contest platform moderation decisions through internal complaints, certified out-of-court bodies, or national courts.

Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2835 on DSA transparency reporting templates

The implementing regulation's templates define complaint and dispute outcome fields such as upheld, partially reversed, reversed, omitted, median time, and implemented outcomes.

Section 5

Retention and QA controls for the statement log

Do not rely on the public Transparency Database as the platform's only record. The Commission FAQ says statements are searchable for six months, daily dump files are retained for 18 months, and dashboard aggregate statistics cover the last five years; internal evidence may need to support complaints, regulator questions, and transparency reporting after public search availability changes.

Run QA before notice delivery and again after database submission. The QA owner should check both legal completeness and data quality: a statement can satisfy the field list and still be too vague for a recipient to understand or challenge.

Completeness QA: every Article 17 minimum field is populated or marked not applicable with a reason; redress text is present where required.
Specificity QA: facts, circumstances, legal grounds, and contractual grounds are precise enough for the recipient to understand the decision.
Automation QA: automated detection and automated decision support are flagged consistently between the user notice, database payload, and internal moderation record.
Privacy QA: database payloads exclude personal data and redress information that should be sent only to the addressee.
Retention QA: preserve internal statement records, submission confirmations, complaint links, dispute links, corrections, and report mapping separately from the public database retention window.
Correction QA: if a transparency report is updated to correct inaccuracies, errors, or methodology changes, mark the updated version and reason for the change as required by the implementing regulation.

Sources for this answer

European Commission - DSA Transparency Database Q&A

The FAQ grounds the public database retention windows and the distinction between full search, daily dumps, and dashboard aggregates.

Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2835 on DSA transparency reporting templates

The implementing regulation requires transparency reports to be retained for at least five years and updated versions to be clearly marked.

Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act)

Article 17 requires statements to be clear, easily comprehensible, precise, and specific enough to support redress.

Recommended next step

Turn Article 17 reasons into a maintained log

Sorena can help structure DSA statement records, database submission checks, complaint links, and reporting fields so trust and safety teams can explain and audit moderation decisions.

Research workflow

Open Research Copilot for DSA

Ask source-linked questions about Article 17 statements, Transparency Database submission, complaints, and dispute reporting.

Explore next step

Talk to Sorena

Talk through implementation

Review your statement-of-reasons log fields, submission gaps, and QA controls with Sorena.

Explore next step

Primary sources

References and citations

European Commission - DSA Transparency Database Q&A

digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu

Referenced sections

The FAQ grounds the public database retention windows and the distinction between full search, daily dumps, and dashboard aggregates.

"Search data will be retained for six months"

European Commission - Out-of-court dispute settlement bodies under the DSA

digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu

Referenced sections

The Commission page explains that users can contest platform moderation decisions through internal complaints, certified out-of-court bodies, or national courts.