Online safety in Belgium: the EU Digital Services Act (2026)

The intra-Belgian cooperation agreement and the law designating BIPT as Digital Services Coordinator entered into force, activating BIPT's powers to certify trusted flaggers, investigate, and fine providers up to 6% of global turnover. It made Belgium's multi-level DSA enforcement operational across federal and community regulators.

Belgium published the law approving the 3 May 2024 cooperation agreement between the Federal State and the three Communities on coordinated DSA implementation, completing the national legal framework for the regulation. It allocated competences for online content oversight among BIPT, VRM, CSA and the Medienrat.

In Decision 131/2024 the Data Protection Authority sanctioned a media company for omitting a reject button on the first layer of its cookie banner and highlighting 'accept all' in an eye-catching colour. It reinforced Belgium's strict stance against dark patterns in online tracking consent.

The federal government and the Flemish, French and German-speaking Communities concluded a cooperation agreement to jointly coordinate parts of the DSA, reflecting Belgium's split competence over audiovisual and online content. It established BIPT as the single point of contact toward the EU and other member states.

The Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel published findings that pornographic content circulated freely on X without effective age protection, in possible breach of the AVMSD and DSA. The intervention spotlighted Belgian regulators' focus on protecting children from explicit online content.

The EU Digital Services Act became directly applicable to all intermediary services, imposing notice-and-action, transparency and illegal-content obligations on platforms operating in Belgium. As a regulation it applied without transposition, superseding parts of the older e-commerce regime.

The Data Protection Authority published guidance prohibiting cookie walls and deceptive design and requiring an equally prominent reject option on the first banner layer. It became the practical benchmark for lawful online tracking consent in Belgium.

The Flemish Media Regulator issued its first formal warnings to influencers for breaching commercial-communication rules, marking initial enforcement of AVMSD-derived obligations on social media content creators. It signalled that vloggers and influencers fall within audiovisual content regulation.

Flanders amended its Media Decree to implement the 2018 revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive, extending content rules to video-sharing platforms and influencer channels on YouTube, Instagram and TikTok. It brought user-generated online video within the audiovisual safety framework.

The Framework Act of 30 July 2018 (with the Act of 3 December 2017 creating the Data Protection Authority, successor to the Privacy Commission) tailored the GDPR into Belgian law. It underpins enforcement of privacy and tracking rules that shape online platform conduct.

Inserted into the Code of Economic Law by the Act of 15 December 2013, Book XII codified Belgium's e-commerce rules, including hosting/caching/mere-conduit liability exemptions for intermediaries. It consolidated the legal basis for platform responsibility for illegal content.

The Law of 11 March 2003 on certain legal aspects of information society services transposed Directive 2000/31/EC, setting the original framework for intermediary liability, notice-based removal of illegal content, and electronic communications. It laid the foundation for online content regulation later folded into Book XII and the DSA.