Both platforms have policies on climate misinformation: TikTok prohibits it, while YouTube only says creators cannot earn ad money from it. When EFCSN members Fundación Maldita.es and Science Feedback reported videos that broke those rules, the platforms did very little about it.
Their joint report, “Inconsistencies in climate dis/misinformation moderation on YouTube and TikTok: A phased analysis on video-based platform enforcement of climate disinformation under the EU’s Digital Services Act”, was supported through the EFCSN.
Key Findings
The researchers reviewed 1,225 Spanish and French videos published between October 2025 and February 2026 and reported 169 that broke the platforms’ own rules: 87 on TikTok and 82 on YouTube. Here are the key findings from the report:
- YouTube: under 5% of the 82 reported videos appear to have lost their ads, but YouTube did not notify the researchers about their decision on any of the reports.
- TikTok: it restricted 20% of the 87 videos flagged to it. It acted under its conspiracy theory rule, which limits a video’s reach, rather than removing videos under its climate rule.
- TikTok appeals: the researchers appealed TikTok’s decisions, and it did not reverse a single one across 147 pieces of content. In Spain, its replies always landed on the hour or half-hour, a sign of automated moderation.
- Repeat offenders: accounts with three or more reported violations faced no visible account-level action on either platform.
- DSA routes: the researchers then took the cases outside the platforms. In Spain, a DSA Out-Of-Court Dispute-Settlement Body (ODS) ruled on just 10% of complaints within a month. In France, the regulator Arcom had not replied to the complaint at the time of writing.
“Platform rules are only as good as their implementation,” said Carlos Hernández-Echevarría, Associate Director and Head of Public Policy and Institutional Development at Fundación Maldita.es.
“If platforms are unable, or more often unwilling, to apply them consistently, users are better off without them, and at least they can save themselves the frustration. Both YouTube and TikTok have well-crafted climate misinformation policies that have no impact because they are just words on a website. They are not real rules if they are not enforced.”
-Carlos Hernández-Echevarría, Associate Director and Head of Public Policy and Institutional Development at Fundación Maldita.es
The report calls on platforms to apply their policies consistently, as Article 14 of the DSA requires, and to update those rules to cover newer forms of climate denial, such as conspiracy theories about weather manipulation. It also asks that human review “meaningfully improves” automated moderation, so that near-identical videos aren’t treated differently. For regulators, it recommends making platforms tell users what happened to their reports, as Article 20 of the DSA requires, pushing for transparency on which content earns money, and getting out-of-court dispute bodies to respond faster.
“Climate misinformation undermines public trust in science and delays action on a problem that affects everyone,” said Emmanuel Vincent, Executive Director of Science Feedback.
“It often circulates in the aftermath of crises (floods, fires…), when people most need reliable information. Platforms should help their users navigate these difficult times by mitigating the spread of climate misinformation and promoting reliable sources. The Digital Services Act requires platforms to apply their terms diligently and to answer people who report content. We now have independent evidence of where that isn’t happening, and regulators should use it.”
-Emmanuel Vincent, Executive Director of Science Feedback.
Read the full report from Fundación Maldita.es and Science Feedback.
This report is funded through the EFCSN Platform Accountability Call, which supports EFCSN members in examining how digital platforms handle mis- and disinformation and whether they live up to EU rules and their own commitments. More reports from the call will be published on https://efcsn.com/stories-of-impact/ in the coming months.
Accountability Grants are co-funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.
