Gaming Bans and Gamer Rights Under the Digital Services Act: 4 Steps and Remedies

Bans and the User-Platform Contract

When you sign up for an online game, gaming service, or streaming platform, you enter a contractual relationship defined by the provider’s Terms of Service or End-User License Agreement (EULA). This is essentially a private contract between you (the “user” or player) and the platform.

The platform promises to provide the service (access to the game or community) and you promise to follow the rules – and often, those rules reserve the provider’s right to sanction or remove you if you don’t. In legal terms, it’s generally a form of service contract or license agreement: you get a license to use the game or platform, not ownership of it, and the provider retains power to enforce its rules. In the past, these contracts have been one-sided.

Many EULAs give companies broad discretion to ban accounts, sometimes “at any time, for any reason”. Players who found themselves banned were often at the mercy of the platform’s support team, with little formal recourse if the ban was unjustified. The result was a kind of Wild West in which a gamer’s investment–time, progress, purchased skins or items, could be extinguished overnight by a ban, often with only a cursory explanation (if any) from the provider.

What Is the Digital Services Act?

The DSA is a landmark piece of legislation enacted by the European Union to regulate digital platforms, services, and intermediaries operating in Europe. Its formal name is Regulation (EU) 2022/2065. The DSA, alongside the Digital Markets Act (DMA), forms the core of the EU’s strategy to make the digital environment safer, fairer, and more transparent for all users.

The DSA entered into force in November 2022 and became fully applicable across the EU on 17 February 2024. It applies not only to giants like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitch, but also to gaming platforms, marketplaces, and virtually any service that acts as an “intermediary” online – in other words, any company that hosts, transmits, or makes available user-generated content or facilitates interactions between users.

Why Did the EU Create the DSA?

The DSA was introduced in response to growing concerns about the power and influence of large digital platforms. For years, users, governments, and advocacy groups have raised concerns about online safety, the spread of illegal content, opaque moderation practices, and the lack of meaningful recourse for users harmed by unjustified bans, content removals, or algorithmic decisions.

Before the DSA, platforms were largely free to write their own rules and procedures, often at the expense of user rights. The result was a patchwork of policies, accompanied by frequent stories of users being suddenly banned, demonetized, or censored without explanation or the possibility of appeal. For professional gamers, streamers, and influencers, this could mean the loss of a career overnight.

The DSA is designed to address these power imbalances by setting minimum standards for transparency, accountability, and user rights that apply to all digital intermediaries offering services to Europeans, regardless of their location.

Key Principles and Innovations of the DSA

1. Scope and Application
   The DSA applies to a wide range of digital services, from simple web hosts and forums to complex platforms like Discord, Steam, Twitch, and Fortnite. It classifies services into several categories – hosting services, online platforms, and “very large online platforms” (VLOPs), each with increasing obligations depending on their reach and impact.
2. Transparency in Moderation and Bans
   At the heart of the DSA are requirements that platforms must be open about how they moderate content and accounts. This includes rules for how they detect, report, and respond to illegal or rule-breaking content, as well as how they enforce sanctions such as bans or suspensions.

Whenever a platform takes action against a user – deleting a post, muting a chat, banning a gamer – it must give a clear, specific, and understandable statement of reasons. This transparency aims to end the era of “black box” moderation and ensure users understand what happened and why.

3. Procedural Rights and Appeals
   The DSA gives users enforceable rights to challenge moderation decisions. This includes the right to an internal complaint procedure (handled by the platform itself) and the right to seek out-of-court dispute resolution before certified, independent bodies. Platforms must process complaints quickly, fairly, and without charging the user.
4. Automation and Human Oversight
   Given the prevalence of automated moderation (e.g., auto-bans for cheating or toxic language), the DSA specifically mandates that users must be informed if a decision was made by automated means. Users have the right to a meaningful review, not just a rubber stamp from another bot. Platforms must make sure their automated systems are fair, reliable, and do not systematically discriminate or produce errors without recourse.
5. Protection of Minors and Vulnerable Groups
   The DSA imposes stricter obligations on platforms likely to be accessed by minors, including risk assessments and age-appropriate design features. While this is less directly relevant to bans, it’s a key feature of the regulation.
6. Oversight and Enforcement
   Every EU country must appoint a “Digital Services Coordinator” (DSC) – an independent regulator tasked with ensuring compliance with the DSA. In Germany, this is the Bundesnetzagentur. Platforms that ignore or violate DSA obligations can face stiff penalties, including fines of up to 6% of their global annual turnover.
7. No “Contracting Out”
   Crucially, DSA rights and protections cannot be overridden or excluded by a platform’s own terms and conditions. If a company’s EULA or community guidelines contradict the DSA, the law prevails.

What Does the DSA Mean for Gamers and Streamers?

For the gaming community, the DSA represents a seismic shift. It recognizes that access to platforms – for play, socializing, or earning a living – is now a vital part of modern life. With that in mind, the DSA gives users:

• The right to know why they’ve been banned or restricted, with meaningful explanations.
• The right to challenge and appeal platform decisions, with human review and external oversight.
• The assurance that platforms cannot act arbitrarily or in secret.
• Access to regulatory bodies if all else fails.

No longer are gamers and streamers simply at the mercy of faceless moderation teams or algorithms. Platforms are required to treat users fairly, communicate clearly, and provide genuine recourse for mistakes or overreach. For platforms, it means building or upgrading their moderation, notification, and appeals infrastructure to meet EU standards – a process that is already reshaping the industry.

Enter the Digital Services Act

The EU’s DSA promises to bring greater accountability and transparency to how platforms handle issues like user bans. It imposes new duties on online platforms (from social media to game services) when they moderate content or users. In the context of gaming bans, several key DSA provisions directly bolster the rights of users who get hit with a suspension:

• Transparency and Reasons (Article 17 DSA): If a platform takes an action that affects a user’s content or account – for example, deleting a post or banning or suspending an account – it must inform the user and provide a statement of reasons. Crucially, this statement must include specific details: what decision was made and why, what facts or circumstances were relied upon, and whether the decision was made in an automated manner. In other words, no more mysterious bans with only a generic “you violated our guidelines” notice. Under Article 17 DSA, if you’re banned, the platform owes you an explanation that actually makes sense: What rule was violated? What evidence or occurrence triggered the ban? Was an algorithm involved in the decision? And importantly, the notice should also tell you how you can seek redress or appeal the decision. This level of transparency is intended to hold platforms accountable for their moderation decisions and prevent the kind of opaque account shutdowns that have frustrated gamers for years.
• Internal Complaint Mechanism (Article 20 DSA): The DSA doesn’t stop at requiring an explanation; it also gives users a way to fight back. Article 20 obliges online platforms to provide a user-friendly internal complaint system. If you believe your ban was a mistake or unjust, you have the right to lodge a complaint directly with the platform and have the decision re-examined. The complaint process must be easily accessible and free of charge. Importantly, it covers various situations, allowing you to challenge decisions to remove or disable access to content, as well as decisions to suspend or terminate your account. Once you file a complaint, the platform is supposed to review it diligently and impartially. They must then inform you of the result of that review, providing a reasoned decision on whether they uphold or reverse the ban. This is a major development – it essentially forces platforms to hear out banned users and give them a second look, rather than simply ignoring appeals or funneling users into a customer support black hole.
• Independent Dispute Resolution (Article 21 DSA): What if the internal complaint doesn’t resolve the issue? The DSA adds another layer: you should be informed of further redress options, including the possibility of out-of-court dispute resolution. Article 21 envisions that users can turn to independent dispute settlement bodies that the EU states will certify for handling content moderation disputes. Platforms must tell users about these options when responding to a complaint. For example, if a streamer’s account remains banned after an internal appeal, they may take their case to a neutral dispute resolution body for review. These bodies can issue decisions that, while not binding like a court order, put additional pressure on platforms to rectify wrongful bans. And, of course, none of this supplants your right to go to court – users can always seek judicial redress if needed. However, the DSA aims to provide faster, less formal pathways to resolve disputes. The overarching goal is to make platforms more accountable for moderation by creating checks and balances: first, an internal check (appeal) and then an external check (independent review or regulatory oversight).

Automated Bans and Fair Procedures

The new rules are especially relevant in an era when many bans are triggered automatically. In online games, it’s common for anti-cheat software or algorithms to flag players or for moderation bots to auto-ban someone for suspected misconduct. While automation helps manage massive communities, it can also lead to errors, false positives that punish innocent players. The DSA squarely addresses this. As noted above, any use of automated means in a ban must be disclosed to the user in the statement of reasons.

This transparency lets a player know, for instance, that “our system detected third-party software on your account” – information that a banned player can then rebut if it’s incorrect. Moreover, the availability of a human-run complaint process means an automated decision doesn’t have to be the final word. You can ask for a human review of the ban, ensuring that you’re not indefinitely stuck in a Kafkaesque loop arguing with a bot.

The emphasis on procedural fairness isn’t just theoretical. It reflects a broader shift in law and policy recognizing that users deserve basic due process rights, even on private platforms. Regulators and courts increasingly view a game account or social media account as something that, while not “owned” by the user, is important enough to the user (and their freedom of expression, livelihood, or leisure) that a fair process should govern its removal.

The German Perspective – Courts Weigh In

Well before the DSA came into force, Germany’s courts had begun carving out protections for users against unjustified bans. A landmark moment was a pair of Federal Court of Justice (BGH) rulings in July 2021 involving Facebook’s community standards. In those decisions, the BGH struck down parts of Facebook’s terms of service as unfair, because they allowed the deletion of user posts and account suspension without notifying the user or giving them a chance to respond.

The BGH made it clear that if a platform wants to ban a user or delete content for a rules violation, it must at least inform the user of what they did wrong and give the user an opportunity to present their side of the story – even if that opportunity comes after an immediate takedown in urgent cases. In essence, Germany’s highest civil court injected principles of natural justice into the platform-user relationship, treating the platform’s dominance and the user’s dependence on the service as a reason to require more fairness in the process.

That BGH ruling set the tone, and lower courts followed suit. For example, in 2022, the Higher Regional Court of Dresden (OLG Dresden) held that permanently banning a user generally requires a prior warning – the platform should warn the user about the offending behavior and give them a chance to stop before resorting to a permanent ban. The Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe reached a similar conclusion, emphasizing that only in exceptional cases (such as very severe violations) could a user be banned outright without warning. Meanwhile, the Higher Regional Court of Munich (OLG München) emphasized the necessity of providing users with reasons for a ban.

In a September 2022 case, OLG München echoed the BGH’s principles: it found that a user has a contractual right to not be banned without being promptly informed of the reason, and if the platform’s terms don’t provide for that, the user can even seek an injunction against the platform to prevent unexplained future bans.

In practical terms, German courts were saying “no explanation, no ban” – a clear foreshadowing of the DSA’s Article 17 requirements. Courts in Cologne and Braunschweig likewise issued decisions reinforcing that users shouldn’t be kept in the dark. By the time the DSA arrived, this line of case law had built a consensus in Germany that outright arbitrary bans or bans without due process are legally problematic. This jurisprudence now dovetails with the DSA, which provides an EU-wide framework to ensure transparency and remedies for users.

Facing a Ban – Steps and Remedies

If you’re a gamer or streamer who finds yourself banned, it’s important to know that you’re not powerless. Here’s a practical roadmap in light of the DSA and emerging legal norms:

1. Stay Calm and Gather Information

First, take screenshots or save the messages related to your ban – the ban notification, any stated reason, the date and time, and any prior warnings you received. Document everything. This might seem obvious, but it’s crucial. That information is your starting point and evidence. Under the DSA, the platform should provide a statement of reasons for the ban. Carefully read whatever explanation you’ve been given. If it’s vague or nonexistent (“you violated our community guidelines” with no specifics), make a note of that. Keep records of your game purchases, rank, or any investments tied to the account, since that can be relevant if you need to argue the impact of the ban.

2. Use the Internal Complaint Process

Every major platform now is required to have an internal appeal or complaint mechanism (thanks to Article 20 DSA).. Locate the official process for appealing your ban – this may be a form on the website, an in-app “appeal” button, or instructions to email a support address. Follow the process and be thorough but concise. Explain why you believe the ban is mistaken or unfair. Stick to facts and be polite.

For example, if you were accused of cheating but you know it’s a false positive, state that clearly: “I believe the anti-cheat system has flagged my account in error. I have never used unauthorized software and am willing to cooperate fully to prove my innocence.” If you have counter-evidence (screenshots, logs, in-game witnesses), present it. Under DSA rules, the platform’s team is supposed to review your complaint objectively and inform you of the result, providing a reasoned explanation. Give them a chance to do the right thing. Many bans are reversed at this stage if you present a credible case.

3. Escalate to External Avenues if Needed

If the internal appeal doesn’t resolve the issue – or if the platform ignores your complaint or responds with a perfunctory rejection – the DSA provides for further steps. The platform should have told you about out-of-court dispute resolution options in its response (Article 21). For example, you may be able to contact an industry arbitration panel or an independent dispute board. Look into those: some countries or industries are setting up new bodies to handle these disputes. Additionally, in the EU each country has a Digital Services Coordinator – a government regulator charged with overseeing compliance with the DSA.

In Germany, this role is filled by the Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency). If you’re in Germany and you believe a platform isn’t respecting the DSA – say, it failed to provide a complaint process or it’s habitually banning people without explanation – you can bring it to the attention of the Bundesnetzagentur.

The agency can investigate and even sanction companies for DSA violations. This regulatory route is relatively new, so it remains to be seen how directly it will impact individual ban cases; however, it adds another layer of accountability for platforms. In any case, mentioning in your communications with the platform that you are aware of your DSA rights and are prepared to escalate the matter can sometimes prompt a more careful review by the provider.

4. Legal Action as a Last Resort

If all else fails, you can consider formal legal action. This might involve hiring a lawyer and potentially suing the platform for breach of contract or seeking an injunction to restore your account. Courts have shown a willingness to enforce users’ contractual rights – for instance, German courts have ordered platforms to reinstate accounts or content when a ban or removal was deemed unlawful or in breach of the contract with the user.

However, litigation can be slow and costly, so it’s usually the last resort. It makes the most sense in cases where the stakes are high (such as a professional esports player or streamer whose income depends on their account access) or where a clear principle needs to be established. If you do go this route, having documentation of all your communications, including the reasons given (or lack thereof) for the ban and your attempts to resolve it, will be essential evidence.

Your chances will also be better under the new regime: you can point to the DSA’s requirements as setting a standard of care that the platform should meet, and highlight if the platform fell short of those legal obligations.

Throughout all these steps, one golden rule stands: keep records and communicate in writing. If you have a phone call with support, follow up with an email summarizing the key points discussed. If you receive any confirmations or ticket numbers, save them. The importance of documentation cannot be overstated – not only for making your case to the platform or a court, but also because the DSA’s frameworks rely on evidence of what happened (for example, if you need to show the regulator that “I tried to appeal but got no meaningful response,” you’ll want proof of that correspondence).

Conclusion

The landscape of gamer bans is evolving. What used to be a dead end – a unilateral ban with little transparency – is becoming a more regulated, fairer process. Platforms are now required to be more transparent and justify their actions, and users have concrete avenues to assert their rights. The EU’s Digital Services Act marks a new era in which gamers and streamers are not just digital tenants living at the mercy of their landlords (platforms); they are recognized as stakeholders with rights to due process and explanation. For the gaming industry, this means higher accountability: decisions to ban players must be carefully considered and communicative, not arbitrary or silent. For players, it means a banned account isn’t necessarily game over.

As this area of law develops, we can expect to see more cases and precedents that further clarify the rights of users. But the direction is clear – from now on, if you get banned, you have both the tools and the legal backing to fight it. And even if you never have to go that far, the mere existence of these rights should encourage platforms to handle bans more judiciously in the first place. Gaming is a passion and even a profession for many, and losing access can be devastating. It is only fair that when something as severe as a ban occurs, it should happen by the book and not on a whim.

This article is published by Esports Legal News and is based on an original blog post from Dr. Oliver Daum, adapted with permission and expanded for clarity and comprehensiveness.

Further reading: Latham & Watkins, The Digital Services Act: Practical Implications for Online Services and Platforms