So, from what I undestand, the EU is claiming that the fact that the blue checkmark is now for sale rather than being otherwise verified deceives the users. But is it deceit if it was publicly announced and was front page news?
Does "front page news" and "publicly announced" really constitute a reasonable disclosure to the users? I am not even sure what "front page news" actually means anymore? I so frequently get a different set of must-share news from various people that I have to wonder how much overlap most of our lives really have.
I think we could all reasonably agree that 0% transparency would be never acknowledging any change at all and 100% would be a disclaimer message on every instance a blue checkmark is shown.
If we split that down the middle, which seems fair, a page shown on next login that explains the differences and has the user click an acknowledgment button is where I see the midpoint to transparency is.
A press release doesn't meet that bar for me. If you use the service there should be an attempt to inform you an important change has been made to the platform, before continuing. And not in some legalise policy document nobody reads. This is where we really need those flashy corporate landing pages with info-graphics that make it easy for everyone to grok the changes.
Anything less seems deceptive to me. If you aren't trying to deceive, catch your users at the door. They can decide from there.
(I don't have X/Twitter and I am not a lawyer).