A platform’s user count can determine far more than its advertising value. It can determine which regulatory obligations apply.
The EU General Court has dismissed Technius’s challenge to Stripchat’s designation as a very large online platform under the Digital Services Act. Technius reported approximately 31.8 million monthly active recipients in the EU; the Commission calculated more than 62 million, above the 45-million threshold.
The Court upheld the original designation, which imposed stricter transparency, risk-management and oversight obligations. An appeal on points of law remains possible.
The ruling concerns the legality of the December 2023 designation. The Commission separately terminated Stripchat’s designation on May 27, 2025; today’s judgment does not announce a new designation.
The dispute concerned methodology
Both sides relied on Similarweb data. The disagreement concerned how those data were treated.
According to the Court’s explanation, Stripchat’s additional reduction for “bounced visits” understated its audience because Similarweb’s unique-visitor calculation already filtered out a significant number of those visits.
An important complication followed: Similarweb later revised its methodology, producing an estimate of approximately 37.3 million for the relevant period. The Court nevertheless assessed the designation against the facts and law at the time of adoption, rather than treating the later correction as invalidating it.
The case therefore involves both measurement and the timing of administrative review.
Analytics become legal evidence
For platform counsel, the lesson is that audience measurement cannot remain solely within a marketing dashboard.
When a statutory threshold determines regulatory status, exclusions, adjustments and assumptions become legally consequential. Counsel need to understand what the metric measures and whether it corresponds to the legislation.
A count of accounts, visits, unique visitors or active recipients may answer different questions. Using those terms interchangeably can obscure the basis for a compliance conclusion.
The necessary work is collaborative: legal teams identify the statutory concept, while technical and analytics teams explain how the available data approximate it.
Preserve the calculation, not just the result
An organization should be able to reconstruct the figure it reported at a particular time.
That means retaining the source data, methodology, exclusions, review process and reasons for material adjustments. A current dashboard may not reproduce an earlier calculation after a supplier changes its methods.
The later Similarweb revision makes that point especially relevant here. A number can change because behaviour changed, because the measurement changed, or both. Those explanations should remain distinguishable.
The Canadian relevance
The ruling concerns EU law, but it matters to Canadian businesses assessing obligations connected to European operations.
More broadly, it illustrates a recurring compliance problem: a business metric can become the gateway to a substantially different legal regime.
The decision should not be reduced to a claim that regulators may choose whichever audience estimate is largest. The Court examined the reliability and explanation of the methodology used.
When a number determines your obligations, the method behind it becomes part of your legal position.
Related coverage: explore EU technology regulation and governance records.
Sources: General Court press release · European Commission: designation history .
Related coverage: TikTok Gatekeeper Appeal: EU Advocate General Clarifies Evidence Threshold.