Appeals process for moderation actions exists

Without an appeals process, every moderation error is permanent — false positives remove legitimate content with no recourse for the affected user. DSA Art. 17 explicitly requires that platforms offer an internal complaints mechanism for moderation decisions. Beyond compliance, platforms without appeals alienate good-faith users who trigger overzealous automation, and create PR liability when high-profile wrongful removals become public. A structured appeal intake also generates data on false positive rates, which is the primary signal for calibrating automated moderation thresholds.

Implement a structured appeals endpoint and link to it from all moderation notification emails. Users need at minimum a content ID and a reason field:

app.post('/api/appeals', authenticate, async (req, res) => {
  const { contentId, reason } = req.body;
  if (!contentId || !reason) {
    return res.status(400).json({ error: 'contentId and reason required' });
  }
  await db.appeals.create({
    contentId,
    userId: req.user.id,
    reason,
    status: 'pending',
    createdAt: new Date(),
  });
  res.status(201).json({ success: true });
});

An email address in a policy page with no structured intake does not satisfy this check. Appeals must be reviewable in the moderation queue and the outcome communicated to the user.