Internet giants obscure monetisation rules, flagrantly abusing creators, the very people that fill their coffers, EU Perspectives learned.
Content creators increasingly depend on social media for their income, but they have little transparency over their earnings. A new audit by WHAT TO FIX found that the monetisation rules used by YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and X are often difficult to find, poorly explained and unclear about how creators can challenge decisions.
“This audit illustrates the financial uncertainty created by platform broad discretionary powers, which can push creators toward questionable deals to guarantee income, self-censorship for fear of being demonetised, or to create more controversial content to stay afloat,” said Belén Luna Sanz, policy manager at WHAT TO FIX, to EU Perspectives. WHAT TO FIX is an “evidence-based tech policy and accountability nonprofit dedicated to building the evidence and policy pathway to realing monetisation in support of humn .centered internet“, its website says.
Platforms are the new bosses
Creators may receive money through subscriptions, gifts, bonuses, advertising revenue and reward programmes. Yet the same companies paying them, write the rules, calculate the earnings, enforce the restrictions and decide bans.
The study comes as civil society organisations are pressing the European Commission to address platform payments through the upcoming Digital Fairness Act. Earlier this month, WHAT TO FIX and 14 other organisations argued that audiences should be told when influencers receive money directly from platforms, as those financial incentives can shape the content they produce.
You might be interested
The new research looks at the other side of the relationship: whether creators themselves understand the conditions under which they are working. “As platforms increasingly become places where people build businesses and earn a living, monetization terms deserve the same scrutiny as any other commercial relationship”, said Victoire Rio, executive director of WHAT TO FIX.
The organisation assessed the platforms against eight transparency requirements of the Digital Services Act. Instagram and TikTok met only one. Facebook met two, X three and Snapchat four. YouTube could not be fully assessed because its monetisation agreements were only available to users already eligible for its programmes.
Criticism unwelcome?
The audit also found that all six platforms disclosed little information about how those decisions were made. Some even placed limits on what creators could say about the platforms. Instagram’s Affiliate Boosting Programme stated that creators could not publicly speak about their relationship with Meta without prior approval. TikTok’s Creator Rewards allowed the company to suspend or terminate participation when a creator made a derogatory statement about TikTok.
Creators can’t meaningfully agree to terms they can’t easily find, can’t read in their own language, or can’t understand. — Belén Luna Sanz, WHAT TO FIX
WHAT TO FIX argues that such clauses may raise concerns under other European and national laws, although they are legal. They are particularly significant for journalists or politicians, who depend financially on the same platforms they need to investigate.
The examination discover that appeal mechanisms were rarely explained in monetisation agreements, even when platforms offered some form of internal complaint system elsewhere. Creators may only learn how to challenge a decision after their income has already been restricted. None of the terms examined referred to compensation when a platform made a mistake that caused financial losses.
Working under opaque rules
Under the Digital Services Act, platforms must make their terms publicly available in clear and accessible language. The largest platforms must also provide summaries and translate the terms in the EU official languages where their services are offered. WHAT TO FIX found that monetisation agreements were often hidden away from the places creators would normally search. In the case of YouTube, the agreements were not publicly accessible at all.
Some translations were also incomplete. In examples identified by the researchers, Instagram pages did not pffer offer Latvian or Gaelic versions. “Creators can’t meaningfully agree to terms they can’t easily find, can’t read in their own language, or can’t understand. Transparency isn’t just about publishing legal documents — it’s about ensuring people can actually find or understand them,” said Ms Luna.
“The solutions are not complicated,” Ms Rio said. “Platforms should make monetization terms easy to find, provide complete translations, explain how enforcement decisions affect earning rights, and
offer meaningful avenues for redress when mistakes occur. These are practical steps that
would improve transparency for creators across Europe.”
