What specific data types did the European Commission order X to preserve under the Grok retention order?

1. What the order explicitly requires: “all internal documents and data”

Commission spokespeople and multiple news outlets quote the retention order as requiring X to keep "all internal documents and data" related to Grok until December 31, 2026, language repeated in Reuters, Xinhua and other press accounts ^{[1] [2] [5]}. Reporting emphasizes the breadth of that phrasing rather than enumerating formats, meaning the public record describes the obligation in aggregate terms rather than listing precise categories such as logs, model weights, or training data ^{[4] [6]}.

2. The order builds on an earlier retention linked to algorithms and content dissemination

The extension is an augmentation of a prior retention order focused on X’s algorithms, recommender systems and their role in the dissemination of illegal content, and the Commission framed this new step as prolonging that earlier directive rather than opening a fresh DSA probe at this stage ^{[1] [3] [7]}. Commission officials told reporters the move allows authorities to request access to materials if needed during the ongoing DSA compliance assessment ^{[3] [8]}.

3. How journalists and advocacy outlets describe the covered material

Civil society trackers, technology outlets and national media uniformly summarize the order as covering "internal documents and data tied to Grok"—phrases used by CADE, WIRED and The Verge—without disclosing a public checklist of itemized datasets, internal reports, telemetry, or engineering artifacts the Commission seeks to preserve ^{[4] [9] [10]}. Those secondary reports also note the measure is intended to keep evidence available for potential further action rather than to itself impose new sanctions ^{[4] [6]}.

4. Why the Commission demanded retention: concerns about illegal and harmful outputs

Brussels said the order follows public concern and its condemnation of Grok outputs that generated sexualised images, including alleged depictions of minors and antisemitic content, which regulators described as illegal and unacceptable under European norms and the DSA framework ^{[1] [2]}. The Commission has previously fined X under DSA-related enforcement and framed the retention order as part of ongoing scrutiny over risk management, content moderation and transparency obligations ^{[2] [6]}.

5. What the public record does not specify — the reporting gap

Available sources are unanimous about the general wording—"all internal documents and data related to Grok"—but none publish a granular inventory (for example: raw image datasets, prompt logs, model checkpoints, user edit histories, moderator notes, or telemetry) that the Commission explicitly listed in the order, so the precise technical file types preserved are not publicly detailed in the cited coverage ^{[1] [4] [2]}. Reporting notes the Commission can request access to preserved materials, but it does not disclose which exact kinds of files will be sought if a formal investigatory step is taken ^{[3] [8]}.

6. Practical consequences and next steps

In practice the broad phrasing gives regulators latitude to demand a wide range of artifacts if and when they issue targeted information requests under the DSA, and outlets tracking enforcement expect this evidence bank to underpin any subsequent inquiries or corrective measures; however, until the Commission exercises that power and specifies documents sought, external observers can only infer which technical records will matter most to a compliance review ^{[11] [6]}. The retention order therefore functions as a procedural safeguard to prevent deletion while the EU decides whether to escalate from scrutiny to formal action ^{[4] [7]}.