• burden of proof
• communicative action
• content moderation
• digital services act
• dsa
• evidentiary gaps
• good administration
• information asymmetry
• legitimacy theory
• ods
• online platforms
• out-of-court dispute settlement
• platform governance
• statements of reasons
• transparency
• user rights

This dissertation examines the legal and procedural challenges faced by Out-of-Court Dispute Settlement (ODS) bodies under Article 21 of the Digital Services Act (DSA), focusing on the quality of statements of reasons (SoRs) under Article 17 and the evidentiary asymmetries that shape dispute resolution. While the DSA promises a layered system—requiring platforms to issue clear SoRs and granting users access to ODS—platform practices remain overwhelmingly generic, depriving users of meaningful explanations. Building on EU law’s duty to give reasons, enshrined in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 CFR, the study argues that fair and legitimate ODS outcomes are only possible if decisions are grounded in accessible and specific reasoning. Doctrinally, it situates reason-giving within the EU’s culture of justification; functionally, it shows how communicative sufficiency, as theorised by Habermas, is indispensable to the legitimacy of ODS outcomes. Based on existing research from the DSA Transparency Database and on original confidential interviews with certified ODS bodies, this dissertation reveals recurring evidentiary gaps: user-side, platform-side, and bilateral. To address these deficits, the dissertation proposes governance reforms including enforcement of minimum SoR standards, conditional inquisitorial powers, and adverse inferences for persistent platform non-compliance.