Georgetown Law
Technology Review

This Note examines the role of quasi-judicial oversight in global tech platform governance by comparing Meta’s privately created Oversight Board (OB) with the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) framework for certified out-of-court dispute settlement (ODS) bodies. Both models aim to expand user remedies and enhance accountability in content moderation, yet they diverge in their approaches to decision-making frameworks, redress mechanisms, and their overall legitimacy. While the OB has increased transparency, influenced Meta’s policies, and fostered public participation, it is weakened by its limited independence, selective application of international human rights law, and narrow jurisdiction. In contrast, ODS bodies benefit from formal certification requirements. Through a comparative analysis of their decision-making frameworks, redress mechanisms, and legitimacy claims, this paper argues that the DSA offers a stronger foundation for legitimate platform governance. At the same time, lessons from the OB—such as its transparent publication practices, civil society engagement, and systemic policy recommendations—can inform and strengthen DSA implementation. Ultimately, this Note contends that while private oversight models like the OB can make meaningful contributions, enduring legitimacy in platform governance requires structures that balance independence, transparency, public participation, and accountability. *