Purpose
The Fact-Checking Policy of EU DataWatch outlines our rigorous, non-negotiable standards for verifying factual claims prior to publication. In the fields of European data governance, competition law, and algorithmic systems, a factual error can mislead regulatory authorities, misinform judicial practitioners, or damage corporate reputations. Our fact-checking process is designed to ensure that every assertion of fact, statistical metric, legal reference, and technical claim is rigorously scrutinized, independently corroborated, and demonstrably true.
Fact-checking is an active, investigative discipline embedded across our newsroom. We view verification not as a preliminary bureaucratic chore, but as the primary mechanism by which journalistic truth is established and defended.
Proportionate Verification
The intensity of our verification process is proportionate to the evidentiary risk and public consequence of the claim. Routine news reports on public legislative votes require verification against official parliamentary logs, while complex investigative pieces detailing unlawful data transfers, corporate surveillance architectures, or regulatory corruption require comprehensive claim-by-claim corroboration against primary legal documents, technical network captures, and sworn testimony.
Uncorroborated single-source claims are prohibited from appearing in our reporting without explicit editorial exception and prominent disclosure to readers.
Author and Editor Responsibilities
The primary responsibility for factual accuracy rests with the author. When submitting a draft, reporters must provide an annotated manuscript linking every substantive factual claim to its underlying evidentiary source—such as a specific page of an official regulatory filing, a paragraph of a judicial judgment, or an interview transcript.
Section editors and dedicated standards checkers independently verify these annotations, cross-examining primary sources, auditing mathematical computations, and checking the veracity of quoted authorities before publication sign-off.
Claim Classification
Our fact-checkers categorize statements into specific claim types, applying tailored verification protocols to each:
Statutory and Legal Claims: Verified against official Eur-Lex texts, OJEU publications, and court dockets.
Regulatory Enforcement Claims: Verified against formal administrative decision documents issued by the EDPB, EDPS, or national DPAs.
Statistical and Economic Claims: Verified against primary data sets, peer-reviewed econometric studies, or official Eurostat releases.
Technical Architecture Claims: Verified through technical documentation, independent code audits, network traffic captures, or cryptographic evaluations.
Corporate and Commercial Claims: Verified against audited annual reports, securities filings, or formal regulatory disclosures.
Source Evaluation
Fact-checkers evaluate sources critically, assessing their proximity to the events, institutional motivations, financial conflicts of interest, and historical reliability. Primary sources—such as direct participants, unredacted official dockets, and authentic technical logs—are strongly preferred over secondary media reports or corporate public relations summaries.
When relying on expert sources, checkers verify their professional credentials, institutional affiliations, and whether they have received funding from corporate or governmental entities with an interest in the outcome.
Quotations, Translation and Identity
Quotations are verified against audio recordings, verified written correspondence, or certified transcripts. In cross-border European reporting, quotations frequently require translation from French, German, Spanish, Italian, Polish, or other official EU languages. Checkers ensure that translations preserve the exact legal and conceptual meaning of the original statement without introducing distortion.
The identities of all quoted individuals and institutional spokespersons are verified through independent corporate directories, official government rosters, or professional credentials.
Dates, Chronology and Location
Timeline precision is crucial in regulatory reporting. Checkers audit the exact dates of administrative complaints, preliminary inquiries, statement of objections, formal hearing sessions, and final orders.
Chronological sequencing must be verified meticulously to ensure that causal relationships are accurately presented and that readers are not misled regarding the procedural state of a case.
Numbers and Calculations
Every number, calculation, percentage, currency conversion, and statistical trend published on EU DataWatch is independently recalculated by our standards team. When reporting on administrative fines imposed under GDPR Article 83 or the Digital Services Act, checkers verify the exact statutory calculation method—including whether the fine was calculated on global annual turnover or specific operational revenue.
We verify that currency figures are accurately converted using official European Central Bank (ECB) exchange rates on the date of the transaction or enforcement decision.
Statistics, Research and Polling
Checkers scrutinize statistical methodologies, sample sizes, margin of error, and funding sources for all surveys, economic models, and academic research cited in our reporting. We reject unscientific online polls and public relations surveys designed to manufacture synthetic public consensus.
When citing empirical research, we prioritize peer-reviewed academic journals, official European statistical releases, and methodology-audited industry benchmarks.
Company, Product and Market Claims
Corporate marketing claims, product demonstrations, and vendor white papers are treated with professional skepticism. Checkers verify product performance claims against independent technical testing, vulnerability disclosures, and audited compliance reports.
When a company claims that its cloud architecture achieves ‘complete GDPR compliance’ or ‘zero-knowledge privacy’, checkers cross-examine the technical white paper against independent cryptographic evaluations to ensure the claim is technically sound.
Legal Claims
Legal reporting requires rigorous statutory accuracy. Checkers verify that articles correctly cite the governing directive, regulation, or treaty article (e.g., Article 6(1)(f) GDPR for legitimate interest; Article 9 GDPR for special categories of personal data).
When reporting on CJEU judgments, checkers verify that the ruling is accurately summarized, distinguishing between the operative binding judgment and non-binding obiter dicta.
Images, Screenshots, Video and Social Media
Checkers subject all digital imagery, user interface screenshots, and social media posts to reverse-image searches and metadata analysis (EXIF data) to confirm their authenticity, origin date, and location. We verify that screenshots of regulatory portals or dark patterns have not been altered or doctored.
We do not publish unverified user-generated social media claims without independent confirmation from primary participants.
Anonymous Sources and Right of Reply
When reporting relies on confidential or anonymous sources, fact-checkers verify that the source’s real identity and institutional position have been corroborated by at least two senior editors. The factual information provided by an anonymous source must be independently corroborated by documentation or second-source confirmation.
Checkers ensure that all critical assertions have been put to the affected parties in writing, and that their substantive replies have been checked and accurately incorporated.
Artificial Intelligence Verification
As generative AI tools can produce plausible yet entirely fabricated legal citations, case numbers, and quotes (hallucinations), checkers verify every legal case citation against official CJEU Curia databases and national court registries. We strictly prohibit the reliance on AI-generated summaries as factual sources.
High-Risk Claims and Headline Review
Claims involving severe regulatory offenses, multimillion-euro sanctions, criminal fraud, or state espionage are designated High-Risk. These claims are subjected to multi-eye review by the Editor-in-Chief and external legal counsel.
Headlines, sub-headings, and pull-quotes receive dedicated fact-checking review to ensure they do not exaggerate or generalize the carefully qualified facts in the text.
Metadata and Final Reconciliation
Prior to publication, checkers conduct a final reconciliation of all metadata, author bylines, article category badges, publication timestamps, and hyperlink destinations to ensure flawless operational execution.
Uncertainty, Failed Verification and Corrections
If a factual claim cannot be definitively verified prior to deadline, it is removed from the story. We prioritize accuracy over speed. If, despite our rigorous fact-checking protocols, an inaccuracy is published, it is addressed immediately through our formal Corrections and Updates Policy.
Contact
To report a factual error or submit supporting documentation regarding an ongoing story, please contact our verification desk: Fact-Checking & Verification Desk: corrections@eudatawatch.com
Newsroom Standards Team: editorial@eudatawatch.com
General Governance: contact@eudatawatch.com