W gate: The Ombudsman has our complaint against the EU Commission

Broad scope

Why?

Public institution should not give one platform an advantage without transparent, published, non-discriminatory criteria. LeafPlaza operates in the same ATProto space as W Social and is directly affected by any institutional preference in that market.

The EU Commission's answer

The EC's Secretariat-General did not address the substance of the complaint. They argue the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour did not apply and pointed us to connect to DG CNECT's contact form instead. Hence, the core issue in unchanged: if the Commission is effectively endorsing a private platform, what criteria justified it and who else got an opportunity?

The Ombudsman filing

We ask the Ombudsman's office to examine 3 things:

We also ask for disclosure of the rationale behind any endorsement and for a fair process where comparable European providers can participate.

Why this path?

There are precedents against this kind of conduct, and LeafPlaza is directly and immediately affected. That direct impact gives the complain an excellent ground. The Ombudsman represents the next logical step after the EC's rejection of our complain.

What is next?

We will keep pressing the EU's administration, following the case through the Ombudsman process, and escalate further as needed. We will also reach out journalists and diverse outlets in hope to get coverage. We will also reach out DG CNECT to discover what they have to say on this topic.

We will keep our followers updated and we encourage others to raise concerns in any of the angles that matter on this issue: ID verification, ethics, governance, transparency, technology.