Under the EU Digital Services Act, platforms must give users a "statement of reasons" when they restrict content. Individual brands are not legally required to issue one for comments on their own posts, but keeping a clear record of why each comment was hidden improves consistency, helps you handle disputes from customers who feel unfairly moderated, and demonstrates good-faith moderation. This template gives you a fill-in statement, worked good-versus-weak examples, and an internal decision log. It pairs with our DSA-Compliant Moderation Policy template.
使える状態 テンプレート
Statement of Reasons — Fill-in Template
使用するタイミング: Use this when a customer asks why their comment disappeared, or as an internal record. Keep the language plain and specific about the rule that was triggered.
STATEMENT OF REASONS (internal / customer-facing) To: [User handle] Date: [Date / Time] Reference: [Log ID] What we did: We [hid / removed / restricted] your comment on [post or ad reference]. Why we did it: Your comment was actioned because it [matched the following rule in our moderation policy: e.g. "contained an external link we do not permit on ads" / "contained a scam or phishing link" / "contained hate speech or a slur" / "promoted counterfeit goods"]. How the decision was made: This decision was made by [an automated system / a member of our team] in line with our published community and moderation rules. Your options: If you believe this was a mistake, reply to this message or contact us at [contact method]. We will review the decision within [X business days] and restore your comment if it was actioned in error. [Company Name]
Worked Examples — Good vs Weak
使用するタイミング: The difference between a defensible decision and a frustrating one is specificity. Always name the action, the rule, and the redress path.
GOOD STATEMENT OF REASONS "We hid your comment on our June ad because it contained an external link, which we do not allow on paid posts to protect customers from scams. This was an automated decision based on our published comment rules. If you think this was a mistake, reply here and we will review it within 2 business days." Why it works: specific action, specific rule, discloses automation, offers redress. WEAK STATEMENT OF REASONS "Your comment was removed for violating our guidelines." Why it falls short: no specific rule, no mention of how the decision was made, no path to appeal. The user is left guessing, which fuels disputes. PRINCIPLE A good statement of reasons answers three questions: What happened? Why (which specific rule)? What can I do about it?
Internal Moderation Decision Log
使用するタイミング: Even if you never send a formal statement to the user, logging the reason internally is what keeps your moderation consistent and defensible.
INTERNAL DECISION LOG — one row per restriction • Log ID • Date / Time (UTC) • Platform and post/campaign ID • User handle • Action (Hidden / Removed / Restricted) • Specific rule triggered • Decided by (Automated / Reviewer) • Statement of reasons sent? (Y/N) • Review requested? (Y/N) and outcome (Upheld / Restored) Keep this log retrievable so you can answer disputes consistently and audit your own moderation for fairness.
のためのヒント 使用する これらのテンプレート
Name the specific rule
Vague references to "our guidelines" cause disputes. State exactly which rule the comment triggered.
Disclose automation
Say whether the decision was made by an automated system or a person. The DSA treats this transparency as important, and customers appreciate it.
Always offer a path to appeal
A short line on how to request a review turns a frustrating removal into a fair process.
Log even when you do not send
Recording the reason internally keeps your moderation consistent and gives you a defensible record.
一般的な 質問
No. Under the DSA the obligation to issue statements of reasons sits with the platforms, not with individual advertisers. You are not legally required to send one for comments on your own posts. Doing so internally, or when a customer asks, simply improves consistency and helps resolve disputes.
It should answer three questions clearly: what action was taken (hidden, removed, restricted), why (the specific rule that was triggered), and what the user can do about it (how to request a review). Disclosing whether the decision was automated is also good practice.
Not necessarily. For obvious spam and scams, most brands simply log the reason internally. The fill-in statement is most useful when a customer asks why their comment disappeared or when the case is borderline and a clear explanation prevents a dispute.
FeedGuardians records the rule behind every moderation action automatically, so you always have the underlying reason on hand. That makes it easy to produce a clear statement of reasons when one is needed.
あなたの返信を自動化
FeedGuardiansで
手動でコピー＆ペーストするのをやめましょう。AIがあなたのブランドボイスと承認されたテンプレートを使って、24時間365日コメントの返信を処理します。
無料トライアルを開始7-day free trial