A Guide to Content Compliance

The digital landscape evolves every day; platforms are no longer judged solely by the quality of their features or the size of their communities. They are held accountable for the safety of the content they host. Governments worldwide are introducing sweeping regulations that raise the stakes for every online platform, from global social networks to emerging startups.

What used to be optional policies around moderation are now legal obligations with serious consequences. Compliance isn't just about removing harmful content; it's about demonstrating how decisions are made, documenting every step, and safeguarding users' rights throughout the process. In this new environment, staying ahead of regulation is no longer just a legal requirement; it's a business-critical strategy.

In this guide, we'll break down the four most influential regulatory frameworks shaping global content compliance:

• Digital Services Act (EU)

• Online Safety Act (UK)

• CSAM regulations & COPPA (US & Global)

• EU AI Act

Along the way, we'll highlight common compliance challenges and explore how platforms can get ahead of shifting requirements. Whether you're building a social network, an online marketplace, or a communication app, understanding these regulations is critical for protecting your business and your users.

What is Content Compliance?

Content compliance refers to the practice of ensuring that online platforms adhere to laws, regulations, and industry standards when managing user-generated content. It goes beyond simply removing illegal or harmful material; compliance requires platforms to have documented processes, audit trails, user protections, and transparency measures that regulators can review.

At its core, content compliance is about accountability. Platforms must demonstrate that they not only detect and act on harmful content, but also do so in a way that respects user rights and aligns with published policies. This can include having notice-and-action systems for user reports, providing appeals processes, and publishing transparency reports that regulators and the public can scrutinize.

By framing moderation as a matter of compliance rather than just business choice, governments and regulators are raising the bar. For platforms, this means content policies are no longer optional guidelines; they are enforceable obligations backed by fines, reputational risk, and, in some cases, executive liability.

Why Compliance Matters

Online platforms are under more scrutiny than ever, given the rise of AI deepfakes, new child safety laws, and increasing concerns over data security. 

Just a few short years ago, most regulations were focused primarily on illegal material like copyright infringement, violent extremist propaganda, and child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Governments and regulators now expect more from online platforms. They not only expect the harmful content to be removed but also to prove how moderation decisions are made, document all decisions, and ensure users' rights are protected along the way.

This marks a fundamental shift in responsibility. Content moderation is no longer viewed as an internal business choice, but rather a matter of legal compliance. Platforms that fail to meet these obligations risk massive fines, reputational damage, or even being shut down. 

For example, the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) threatens penalties of up to 6% of a company's global revenue, while the UK's Online Safety Act carries criminal liability for executives in extreme cases.

We've already seen what happens when compliance goes wrong:

• YouTube and COPPA (2019): YouTube paid a $170 million fine to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and New York Attorney General for violating the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). Regulators found that YouTube had knowingly collected data from under-13 users without parental consent, despite having child-focused channels on the platform.

• Twitter and the DSA (2023): After Elon Musk's acquisition, Twitter (now X) significantly reduced its trust and safety workforce. Regulators in the EU quickly raised concerns that the company could not comply with the Digital Services Act's transparency and illegal content provisions. In late 2023, the EU opened formal proceedings, investigating Twitter's handling of disinformation and child protection.

• Meta and Online Safety Concerns: Meta has faced repeated criticism and regulatory attention in both the EU and UK for failing to adequately protect minors on Instagram and Facebook. Laws like the UK's Online Safety Act explicitly target these failures, making platforms legally accountable for the mental health impact of harmful content on young users.

For product and compliance leaders, the challenge lies in balancing the fast-paced nature of digital interactions with the slow-moving, rigid nature of law. Regulations evolve slowly, but user behavior and the risks tied to it change daily. Platforms need systems that are not only legally sound today but also adaptable to new rules quickly.

With this foundation in mind, the next step is understanding how compliance is shaped by the world's most influential regulations. 

Digital Services Act (EU)

The Digital Services Act (DSA) represents one of the biggest attempts to regulate online platforms in modern history. Enacted by the European Union in 2022, it establishes a new framework for how digital platforms must handle illegal and harmful content. Unlike previous regulations, DSA applies across all EU member states, creating the first unified set of digital obligations for platforms operating in Europe.

DSA applies to all online platforms offering services in the EU, from social networks and marketplaces to smaller niche communities. Platforms with more than 45 million monthly active users in the EU will face stricter oversight and reporting requirements as they are classified as Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs).

DSA is built around three pillars: transparency, user rights, and accountability. Together, these principles set the tone for how platforms are expected to operate in the EU and beyond.

• Transparency means users and regulators must be able to see behind the curtain of moderation systems. Platforms are no longer allowed to operate as black boxes where content is taken down without explanation. Instead, they have to publish clear rules, disclose when algorithms are used in content moderation or ranking, and provide meaningful data through transparency reports. This is intended to restore public trust in digital services, particularly after years of criticism over shadow bans, algorithmic biases, and secretive enforcement practices.

• User rights are at the heart of the regulation. The DSA ensures that individuals have a say in how moderation decisions affect them. Users must be given accessible avenues to appeal moderation decisions or account suspensions, and they should receive explanations when content is removed. This is a major shift away from what many platforms historically offered, where decisions were final and opaque. By centering around the user, the DSA reframes moderation not just as a legal duty but as a matter of digital rights.

• Accountability ties it all together. Platforms aren't just expected to set policies; they're expected to prove they follow them. This means documenting how illegal content is handled, showing evidence of compliance when regulators request it, and ensuring that moderation practices align with published policies. Larger platforms (VLOPs) face additional obligations, such as conducting risk assessments and allowing independent audits. In practice, accountability ensures that platforms can no longer say one thing in their terms of service and do another behind the scenes.

What makes the DSA groundbreaking is that it doesn't just demand outcomes like removing harmful content; it demands processes and proof. A platform can't simply claim it's doing the right thing; it must be able to demonstrate, with logs, reports, and appeals systems, that moderation is being carried out in a fair and transparent way.

Key Requirements and Stream's Role

1. Notice-and-action systems for illegal content

Platforms must implement clear workflows for receiving and acting on user reports of illegal content. This requirement aims to empower users while also creating a paper trail regulators can audit.

• Example: Under the DSA, marketplaces like Amazon must act swiftly when sellers list counterfeit goods flagged by users. Social networks must respond to reports of hate speech or terrorist propaganda.

• How Stream helps: Stream provides user reporting tools and dashboard-based moderation workflows that make it easy to collect, track, and resolve reports in a structured way. This ensures platforms can demonstrate compliance when regulators ask for proof.

2. Disclosure of moderation policies and algorithmic use

Transparency is central to the DSA. Platforms must openly publish how they moderate content, including what constitutes as harmful, and explain where algorithms are used in decision-making.

• Example: TikTok was pressured by EU regulators to disclose how its recommendation algorithms influence the visibility of political content.

• How Stream helps: Stream ensures that moderation processes are clearly documented and covered in customer-facing terms and contracts, making it easier to show regulators that policies are transparent and accessible.

3. Provide an appeals process for takedowns

Users must have a meaningful way to contest moderation decisions, particularly when their content is removed or their account is restricted. This right to appeal is a significant shift from the appeal-in-name-only systems many platforms previously offered.

• Example: Facebook faced criticism for its opaque appeals process, leading to the creation of the independent Oversight Board. Under the DSA, similar accountability measures are mandatory, not optional.

• How Stream helps: Stream is rolling out an Appeals API that allows platforms to build user-friendly appeals flows directly into their apps. This ensures users feel heard and platforms can demonstrate compliance.

4. Share transparency reports

Large platforms are now obligated to publish regular transparency reports that outline how much content was flagged, how many pieces of user-generated content (UGC) were acted on, and what enforcement measures were taken. This data must be granular enough to give regulators visibility into platform behavior.

• Example: YouTube already publishes quarterly transparency reports, but under the DSA, the level of detail required is much greater, including breakdowns by type of harm and enforcement timeline.

• How Stream helps: Stream provides audit logs that document every moderation action taken within a platform. This not only simplifies transparency reporting but also helps internal teams analyze moderation performance over time.

Why It Matters

The DSA is already reshaping how platforms operate. In 2024, the EU opened investigations into several major tech companies over concerns about disinformation, child protection, and lack of transparency. These early enforcement actions signal that regulators are serious about holding platforms accountable.

For any platform serving EU users, the DSA should not be viewed as a compliance checkbox. Instead, it's a chance to build trust with users by demonstrating openness, fairness, and responsibility in moderation.

Online Safety Act (UK)

In 2023, the Online Safety Act (OSA) was passed as one of the most ambitious attempts to regulate online content. While the EU's DSA focused on transparency and accountability, the OSA focused on a child-first approach, maintaining a central mission of protecting minors from harmful content. 

OSA applies to any platform that has users within the United Kingdom, regardless of where their headquarters are. Social networks, messaging services, games, marketplaces, and the like all fall within this scope. If a platform is accessible to UK users, the law applies. 

At its core, the OSA is designed to shield vulnerable audiences, especially children, from being exposed to harmful online content. Unlike earlier regulations that drew a hard line only around illegal material, the OSA acknowledges that the digital world is more complicated. Harm is not always binary; some content is lawful but can still inflict serious damage on younger users.

The Act explicitly targets two categories of content:

1. Clearly illegal material: This includes terrorism-related propaganda, child sexual abuse material (CSAM), online fraud, and hate speech. These are the most urgent threats, and platforms are expected to detect and remove them proactively rather than wait for reports. For example, the Christchurch terrorist attack in 2019, which was live-streamed on Facebook, showed how quickly violent extremist content can spread when detection systems aren't fast enough. Incidents like this were key motivators behind tougher global laws like the OSA.

2. Harmful content: This is where the OSA breaks new ground. The law recognizes that content doesn't need to be illegal to cause harm, particularly to children and teenagers, whose mental health can be profoundly affected by what they encounter online. Examples include cyberbullying, eating disorder encouragement, pro-suicide communities, and content glamorizing self-harm. These issues became front-page news in the UK following the tragic death of 14-year-old Molly Russell, whose exposure to self-harm content on Instagram sparked widespread public outrage and demands for stronger protections. The OSA directly responds to such cases by holding platforms accountable for mitigating these risks.

By introducing the concept of harmful content, the OSA reframes how regulators think about online safety. It requires platforms to take a duty of care approach, anticipating not just what is unlawful but also what could be damaging to users' well-being. For companies, this means building moderation systems that can handle nuance, filtering, and escalating harmful content without infringing on legitimate speech. It's a complex balancing act, but one that regulators now expect platforms to manage with both technological solutions and clear policies.

Key Requirements and Stream's Role

1. Detect and remove high-risk content

Platforms must have robust systems to identify and remove high-risk content categories, including hate speech, terrorism, and other forms of online harm. Regulators expect platforms to act proactively, not simply react after harm has already spread.

• Example: In 2023, Ofcom (the UK's communications regulator) flagged that smaller messaging platforms often lacked the same content moderation sophistication as global players, creating gaps in child protection. Under the OSA, these gaps are no longer acceptable.

• How Stream helps: Stream provides classification models that can detect a wide range of harmful content, from hate speech to extremist language, in real-time. These classifiers allow platforms to catch harmful material quickly, reducing risk to users and ensuring compliance. Importantly, they don't just react after a harmful post has spread; they can act before content is even published, intercepting dangerous material at the point of creation.

2. Protect minors with specialized filters and workflows

Because children are the OSA's central concern, platforms must take steps to proactively protect minors. This includes underage detection, age-appropriate filters, and workflows to escalate potentially harmful interactions for review.

• Example: Meta has faced repeated scrutiny in the UK over Instagram's impact on teen mental health, particularly around eating disorder and self-harm content. The OSA demands protections that aim to prevent such harms from recurring.

• How Stream helps: Stream offers underage detection, escalation tooling, and real-time classifiers designed to identify content that could harm minors. These safeguards can be customized to different risk levels, helping platforms comply with the OSA's strict child protection rules.

3. Offer user-level filtering tools

The act also requires that platforms empower users with tools to filter or avoid certain types of content. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, users should be able to customize what they see and don't see.

• Example: Think of a teen who wants to filter out violent content from their feed, or a parent who wants stronger controls over what their child encounters on a platform. The OSA mandates that platforms provide these user-level safeguards.

• How Stream helps: Stream's moderation APIs give platforms the flexibility to build customizable filtering experiences directly into their apps. This ensures compliance while also creating a safer, more user-centric product experience.

4. Maintain transparency and redress systems

Much like the DSA, the OSA insists on transparency, both toward regulators and toward users. Platforms must publish clear information about how harmful content is addressed, and they must give users avenues to challenge or appeal moderation decisions.

• Example: Ofcom will oversee compliance and has the authority to demand detailed records from platforms, including moderation practices and appeal processes.

• How Stream helps: With audit logs and dashboard workflows, Stream enables platforms to document every moderation decision and provide users with clear, structured redress options. This makes it easier to demonstrate compliance during audits and build user trust.

Why It Matters

The Online Safety Act represents a clear shift in how online safety is regulated. Unlike previous frameworks, it doesn't just target large social media companies, but applies to any platform accessible in the UK, regardless of size. Noncompliance carries steep fines, up to £18 million or 10% of global annual revenue, and, in extreme cases, criminal liability for executives who fail to protect children.

CSAM Regulations & COPPA (US & Global)

Few areas of online compliance are as sensitive or as heavily enforced as child safety and privacy. Around the world, regulators have introduced strict rules to protect children from exploitation and inappropriate content. Two of the most significant frameworks are those addressing child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) in the United States.

These frameworks affect any platform with current child users or even just the potential of child users, regardless of whether the platform is explicitly designed for children. This includes social networks, chat platforms, gaming environments, educational apps, and even general-purpose services where children may be present. Regulators take the stance that if children could reasonably use your platform, you must have protections in place.

At a high level, child safety and privacy frameworks like CSAM regulations and COPPA revolve around three areas: safety, privacy, and reporting obligations. Together, they form the foundation of global child protection online.

• Safety: The first and most urgent priority is ensuring that children are not exposed to harmful or exploitative content. This includes preventing the distribution of CSAM, blocking grooming behaviors, and filtering out inappropriate user-generated material in chat rooms, gaming environments, or video platforms. Safety measures must go beyond surface-level moderation; regulators expect platforms to have real-time detection systems, effective escalation processes, and trained human moderators to handle edge cases. For example, platforms like Discord and Roblox have been criticized for failing to prevent predators from exploiting children in their communities, underscoring how gaps in safety protections can quickly lead to real-world harm and regulatory backlash.

• Privacy: Children's personal data is particularly sensitive, and laws like COPPA in the U.S. and the UK's Age Appropriate Design Code put strict limits on how it can be collected, stored, and used. Platforms must avoid practices like behavioral targeting or algorithmic personalization for under-13 users unless verifiable parental consent has been obtained. The YouTube COPPA case in 2019, mentioned above (which resulted in a $170 million fine), was a watershed moment, showing that regulators will act decisively if companies profit from children's data without proper safeguards. Privacy protections aren't just about shielding children from advertising; they're about preserving their autonomy and minimizing digital footprints that could follow them into adulthood.

• Reporting obligations: Finally, platforms are required to actively report instances of CSAM to designated authorities, such as the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) in the U.S. This is required in many jurisdictions, and failure to report can lead to criminal liability. Reporting obligations also extend to cooperation with law enforcement during investigations, which means platforms must maintain clear audit trails and evidence logs.

By combining these three areas, regulators create a holistic framework for protecting children online. Platforms are expected to be proactive with systems that leave little room for negligence.

Key Requirements and Stream's Role

1. Detect CSAM using automated tools

Regulators expect platforms to have proactive detection mechanisms for CSAM. This typically means integrating with specialized tools such as Microsoft's PhotoDNA or hash-matching systems maintained by child protection organizations.

• Example: In 2021, Apple announced plans to roll out on-device CSAM detection, sparking major public debate about privacy vs. safety. While Apple paused the rollout, the controversy underscored the expectation that platforms must take proactive steps to detect CSAM.

• How Stream helps: Stream does not directly provide CSAM detection, but platforms can integrate specialized tools into their workflows and use Stream's combination of sexually explicit, underage user, and other harm classifications as part of a layered defense strategy.

2. Escalate flagged content for human review

Even the best automated systems are not perfect. Regulations emphasize that potentially harmful or illegal content must be escalated to trained human moderators for verification before action is taken.

• Example: Major tech companies like Google and Meta maintain dedicated child safety teams that review flagged CSAM at scale.

• How Stream helps: Stream's dashboard tools make it easy to flag, route, and escalate suspected content for human review, ensuring compliance with both legal requirements and ethical standards.

3. Have clear child protection policies

Platforms must document and publish policies around how they protect children online, covering areas such as what is prohibited, how moderation works, and how violations are handled. Regulators see these policies as a baseline for accountability.

• Example: Roblox has faced repeated scrutiny around child safety policies, particularly with inappropriate user-generated content. Its policies and enforcement actions are now a key part of maintaining its license to operate.

• How Stream helps: Stream gives customers the infrastructure to enforce their policies, whether through automated classifiers, dashboards, or APIs. The policies themselves are defined by the platform, but Stream enables the workflows that bring them to life.

4. Avoid personalization for under-13s (COPPA)

Under COPPA, platforms cannot collect data to personalize experiences for users under 13 without verified parental consent. This includes activities like targeted advertising, algorithmic recommendations, or behavioral tracking.

• Example: In 2019, TikTok agreed to pay $5.7 million to settle FTC charges that it had illegally collected personal information from children under 13 without parental consent. The app was hugely popular with kids, but its lack of age-gating and data collection practices violated COPPA. The fine, then the largest ever under COPPA, forced TikTok to overhaul its policies, add stricter age checks, and launch a dedicated younger users experience with limited features.

• How Stream helps: With underage detection capabilities, Stream enables platforms to flag users who may be under 13, helping prevent inadvertent personalization or data collection that could trigger violations.

5. Collect parental consent where required

When children are allowed to use a platform, verified parental consent must be collected before gathering specific types of data. This requirement extends beyond the U.S., as many countries have introduced similar age-appropriate design laws.

• Example: In 2022, Snap Inc. faced regulatory pressure in both the U.S. and UK for how Snapchat handled children's data. UK regulators found that Snapchat had failed to properly assess privacy risks to under-18s when rolling out its My AI chatbot, raising questions about whether parental consent and safeguards were in place for younger users. Around the same time, U.S. advocacy groups filed COPPA complaints alleging Snapchat collected personal data from minors without verifiable parental consent.

• How Stream helps: While the consent process itself is owned by the customer, Stream ensures that once consent is gathered, moderation tools can be aligned with the platform's child protection obligations through various permissions and policy configurations.

Why It Matters

For regulators, protecting children is one of the highest-stakes issues in tech policy. Enforcement has been aggressive: COPPA fines in the U.S. are steep, EU regulators regularly investigate platforms' child safety practices, and watchdog groups worldwide monitor compliance. Beyond fines and penalties, failing to protect children carries enormous reputational risks that can permanently damage a brand.

EU AI Act

The EU AI Act, adopted in 2024, is the world's first comprehensive law governing artificial intelligence. While the DSA and OSA focus on platform obligations around harmful content, the AI Act zeroes in on the technologies themselves, especially when AI is used to inform decisions about content.

Any platform that uses AI systems in moderation or content decisions falls under the Act's scope. This includes everything from spam filters and automated hate speech detection to recommendation algorithms and generative AI systems that create or curate content. Importantly, the Act applies not just to companies headquartered in Europe but to any service offered within the EU.

The EU AI Act is built on a risk-based framework, a concept that sets it apart from most previous tech regulations. Instead of applying one-size-fits-all rules, the law recognizes that not every use of AI carries the same risks. For example, an AI system that recommends movies is far less consequential than one that moderates political speech or detects harmful content in real time.

Under the Act, AI systems are categorized into four tiers:

• Unacceptable risk: AI that poses clear threats to safety, rights, or democracy is outright banned. This includes systems for social scoring or manipulative behavioral techniques aimed at children.

• High risk: AI that could significantly impact users' rights, safety, or access to essential services. Content moderation systems, recommender algorithms, and AI used in hiring, education, or healthcare often fall into this category. These systems face the strictest oversight, including documentation, transparency, and human oversight requirements.

• Limited risk: AI tools that require some transparency, like chatbots or deepfake generators, but don't rise to the level of high-risk. These systems must at least disclose to users that they are interacting with AI.

• Minimal risk: Everyday AI applications such as spam filters, recommendation engines for entertainment, or autocorrect tools. These systems face very few obligations, though best practices are encouraged.

Most content moderation and recommender systems land in the high-risk category. Platforms that rely on AI to detect hate speech, remove misinformation, or recommend user-generated posts must meet stringent obligations under this classification.

At a high level, the Act emphasizes three core principles:

• Risk levels: Platforms must assess and classify their AI systems based on the potential harms they pose. This isn't a one-time exercise; regulators expect ongoing monitoring and updates as systems evolve. For example, a classifier trained to detect explicit images could drift over time, leading to false positives or negatives that undermine user trust. Regular reassessment ensures accountability and adaptability.

• Transparency: Users should always know when they're interacting with AI, whether that's an AI moderation decision, an algorithmic recommendation, or a generative AI system producing content. Transparency is critical for rebuilding trust in digital services, particularly after years of criticism over black box algorithms. Think of TikTok's recommendation feed, which has faced scrutiny for its opaque role in promoting harmful content; under the AI Act, platforms must be far clearer about how such systems operate.

• Explainability: Perhaps the most transformative element of the law is the requirement for explainability. It's no longer enough for a platform to say, "This post was removed by an automated system." Users must be given a clear, understandable reason for why their content was flagged or removed, and platforms must be able to show regulators how their AI reached that decision.

By combining these three things, the AI Act aims to create a regulatory environment where AI enhances safety without eroding accountability. It forces platforms to confront not just what their systems do, but how those systems impact human rights.

Key Requirements and Stream's Role

1. Conduct risk assessments and document models

Platforms deploying AI for content moderation must perform detailed risk assessments and maintain technical documentation that regulators can audit. This includes describing the training data, potential biases, and mitigation steps.

• Example: Recommendation systems like TikTok's "For You Page" have been criticized for amplifying harmful content (e.g., promoting eating disorder videos to teens). Under the AI Act, such systems would be considered high-risk, requiring thorough documentation and risk analysis.

• How Stream helps: While customers lead their own risk assessments, Stream provides audit logs that capture how moderation decisions were made. This supports transparency and makes it easier to generate the evidence regulators may demand. We also provide details on how data flows through the LLMs.

2. Ensure human oversight

The Act explicitly requires that high-risk AI systems cannot operate without human checks. Human moderators must have the ability to review and override automated decisions.

• Example: Automated hate speech filters are notorious for false positives, such as flagging reclaimed slurs used in supportive communities. Without human oversight, these errors could suppress legitimate speech.

• How Stream helps: Stream's dashboard workflows are built for human-in-the-loop moderation. Automated classifiers flag content, but humans can confirm, override, or escalate, ensuring decisions meet both legal and ethical standards.

3. Label AI-generated content

Users must be clearly informed when content is AI-generated. This protects against misinformation and ensures that users can distinguish between human and machine-created material.

• Example: The EU has already pressured platforms like Meta and OpenAI to watermark AI-generated images and text. Deepfake videos, in particular, are a growing focus for regulators.

• How Stream helps: Labeling and metadata for AI-generated content are on Stream's roadmap for 2026.

4. Explain why content was flagged

Opaque moderation decisions won't pass regulatory muster. Platforms must be able to explain, in accessible language, why AI flagged or removed a piece of content.

• Example: Users frustrated by unexplained takedowns on platforms like Instagram or TikTok have long complained about the lack of clarity. The AI Act aims to eliminate this opacity.

• How Stream helps: Stream's moderation UI provides explanations for why content was flagged (e.g., "classified as hate speech" or "detected as explicit"), giving users the transparency regulators now demand.

5. Offer appeal processes

Just as with the DSA, users must be able to contest AI-driven decisions. The AI Act reinforces that appeals must be accessible and timely, not buried in hard-to-navigate help centers.

• Example: ChatGPT itself faced a temporary ban in Italy in 2023 after regulators raised concerns about transparency and user rights. That case illustrated how seriously EU regulators take redress mechanisms when AI is involved.

• How Stream helps: Stream's forthcoming Appeals API will allow platforms to integrate structured appeals directly into their apps, making it easy for users to challenge AI-driven moderation outcomes.

Why It Matters

The EU AI Act sets a global precedent. Just as GDPR reshaped privacy law worldwide, the AI Act is expected to influence AI regulation far beyond Europe. For platforms, compliance isn't just about avoiding fines, which can reach up to €35 million or 7% of global revenue; it's about building trust in how AI is used.

For companies using AI in moderation, the takeaway is clear: document your models, keep humans in the loop, and be transparent with users. With Stream's infrastructure, from audit logs to dashboards to appeals APIs, platforms can integrate compliance directly into their workflows, ensuring that AI enhances safety without eroding accountability.

Common Compliance Challenges

With strict regulations like the DSA, OSA, COPPA, and AI Act, compliance is not a simple task. Platforms find themselves navigating dilemmas that go far beyond checklists. Each challenge is shaped by competing priorities: legal obligations vs. user trust, speed vs. nuance, global reach vs. local law. Below are some of the most pressing challenges platforms face today.

The Trade-Off Between Speed and Accuracy

Regulators expect platforms to remove harmful content almost immediately once detected or reported. But speed can sometimes come at the expense of accuracy. Automated systems can scan millions of posts per second, but they are prone to false positives: satire flagged as hate speech, educational resources mistaken for explicit content, or activist posts silenced because they use strong political language.

On the other hand, relying heavily on human moderators ensures greater contextual understanding but slows response times significantly and leaves room for unconscious bias. In high-stakes moments, every minute counts. 

This tension isn't going away. Platforms are under constant pressure to find the sweet spot where harmful content is contained quickly without infringing on freedom of speech. The difficulty lies in the fact that regulators, users, and civil society groups often pull in opposite directions, each demanding more speed, more accuracy, or more freedom.

Cross-Border Legal Differences

Compliance becomes even more complicated when platforms serve a global audience. What's permissible in one jurisdiction may be strictly prohibited in another. A meme mocking a political leader might be protected speech under the U.S. First Amendment, but deemed illegal hate speech under German law, and classified as harmful but legal under the UK's Online Safety Act.

For platforms, this creates a logistical nightmare. Should they enforce the strictest standards everywhere, risking accusations of over-policing? Or should they fragment moderation by region, creating inconsistent user experiences and complex engineering overhead? Neither approach is ideal.

Multinationals like Meta and TikTok already wrestle with this dilemma daily, often facing lawsuits or investigations in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously. For smaller platforms, the challenge is even greater: lacking legal teams and compliance officers, they may struggle to keep pace with divergent requirements. The result is a patchwork of policies that satisfy no one and leave companies vulnerable to fines or bans.

The Resource Strain of Compliance

Compliance requires more than good intentions; it demands significant resources. Large companies can employ thousands of trust and safety staff, build proprietary AI classifiers, and hire teams of lawyers to track regulatory changes. Smaller platforms, however, often lack the budget or personnel to build compliance infrastructure from scratch.

This resource gap has real consequences. Many startups patch together temporary solutions using open-source moderation models, relying on manual review or outsourcing moderation. While these approaches may work in the short term, regulators expect sustainable, documented systems that can scale. 

The dilemma mirrors early responses to GDPR when companies rushed to implement cookie banners, only to find regulators later declared many of them inadequate. Quick fixes rarely survive the test of enforcement. Platforms that fail to invest properly in compliance risk both legal exposure and reputational damage.

Staying Prepared for Future Updates

The final challenge is that compliance is a moving target. Laws evolve, enforcement patterns shift, and public expectations grow faster than regulations themselves. What satisfies regulators today may be insufficient tomorrow.

For example, when GDPR first launched, most companies treated cookie consent as a one-time implementation. Within a few years, enforcement clarified that consent must be explicit, revocable, and free of dark patterns, which forced many businesses back to the drawing board. The same is likely for content compliance. Already, regulators in the EU and UK are signaling that early compliance reports are too generic, suggesting that more detailed disclosures will soon be expected.

Platforms that take a reactive approach by building only for what's mandated today will constantly be scrambling to catch up. The more sustainable strategy is to treat compliance as an ongoing discipline, building systems flexible enough to adapt as obligations expand. 

How Platforms Can Stay Ahead

Forward-thinking platforms don't just react to laws; they anticipate them. Instead of scrambling every time a new rule is introduced, they build systems that are adaptable, transparent, and resilient. Below are four strategies that help companies not only keep up with compliance but stay ahead of it.

Audit Regularly

Auditing isn't something to worry about only when regulators demand proof. In reality, it's the backbone of compliance. Without reliable records, platforms can't demonstrate how they moderate content, respond to user reports, or enforce their own rules.

Building auditability into everyday operations transforms compliance from a reactive burden into an ongoing discipline. Every flagged post, every takedown, every appeal should leave behind a digital paper trail that's both regulator-ready and useful for internal teams. Platforms that invest in regular auditing not only avoid fines but also gain visibility into how effective their moderation truly is.

For example, YouTube's transparency reports became a model for the industry by showing how consistent documentation can shift public perception. By openly sharing how many videos were removed, why, and how quickly, YouTube reframed moderation as a matter of accountability rather than secrecy.

Build With Flexibility

The pace of regulatory change is accelerating. What's considered compliant in 2025 may be outdated by 2027. Platforms that hard-code today's standards into rigid workflows will find themselves rebuilding from scratch when new obligations appear.

The smarter path is designing systems that bend without breaking. Modular APIs, configurable harm categories, and policy-driven workflows allow teams to update enforcement without ripping out infrastructure. 

Consider global platforms like TikTok, which must satisfy EU transparency requirements, UK child protection mandates, and U.S. privacy laws simultaneously. Flexibility in how moderation policies are defined and applied is the only way to reconcile these competing demands without fracturing the user experience.

Future-Proof AI Use

AI is indispensable for moderating content at scale, but it also comes with new responsibilities. The EU AI Act makes clear that high-risk AI, such as classifiers used for moderation or recommender systems that shape information feeds, must be transparent and subject to human oversight.

That means platforms cannot solely rely on AI. Users increasingly expect to know why their content was flagged and to have confidence that a human can review mistakes. Failing to provide that clarity risks both regulatory scrutiny and user mistrust.

Invest in Workflows

• Compliance is not achieved by tools alone; it requires structured workflows.

• Escalation processes ensure high-risk cases are handled by the right people. 

• Appeals systems give users a meaningful voice. 

• Reporting pipelines transform scattered data into regulator-ready evidence.

Platforms that neglect workflows often end up with ad hoc systems, resulting in overworked moderators, inconsistent decisions, and gaps regulators quickly notice.

Final Thoughts

The regulatory landscape for online platforms is undergoing a fundamental transformation. Laws like the DSA, OSA, COPPA, CSAM regulations, and the EU AI Act are not isolated developments; they are part of a global movement to hold digital services more accountable. 

For platforms, this can feel daunting. The stakes are undeniably high: billion-dollar fines, reputational crises, and even executive liability are now very real risks. But these laws also present an opportunity. 

The companies that will thrive in this new environment are those that treat compliance not as a box to tick but as a core part of product strategy. That means integrating daily audits, designing with flexibility for future regulations, ensuring AI remains transparent and explainable, and building scalable processes for escalation, appeals, and reporting. These are not one-time tasks; they are ongoing disciplines that, when done right, become competitive advantages.

At Stream, we believe compliance and user safety go hand in hand. Our APIs, dashboards, classifiers, and audit tools are built to give platforms the infrastructure they need to stay ahead of evolving regulations without sacrificing user experience or speed. Whether it's enabling human-in-the-loop moderation, powering appeals processes, or generating audit-ready logs, we aim to provide the building blocks for platforms to operate with confidence in a complex regulatory world.

The future of in-app moderation is being shaped right now. Laws will continue to evolve, user expectations will continue to rise, and platforms that fail to adapt will fall behind. But those who lean into proactive compliance will not only survive but also build stronger, safer, and more trusted digital communities.