Proposal for an initiative on greater transparency in sponsored political content (‘political advertising’), and other supporting measures
Date: 2022-01-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: fundamental rights

COMMISSION 

EUROPEAN 
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL 
JUSTICE 
CONSUMERS 
Directorate  D  Unit  D.3.:  Union 
citizenship rights and Free movement 

AND 

Political advertising – improving transparency 

Summary report – public consultation 2021 

Disclaimer: This document should be regarded solely as a summary of the contributions made by 
stakeholders  in  the  open  public  consultation  on  an  initiative  on  the  transparency  of  political 
advertising.  It  cannot  in  any  circumstances  be  regarded  as  the  official  position  of  the 
Commission  or  its  services.  Responses  to  the  consultation  activities  cannot  be  considered  as  a 
representative sample of the views of the EU population. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF RESPONDENTS 

The purpose of the open public consultation was to  gather stakeholder input with regard to the 
initiative on the transparency of political advertising1, and to ensure that all relevant stakeholders 
were  given  the  opportunity  to  share  their  views.  More  specifically,  the  consultation  aimed  to 
gather  the  views  of  stakeholders  on  the  need  and  objectives  for  EU  intervention  as  well  as 
different policy options regarding the transparency and targeting of political advertising. 

Open public consultations are not by nature statistically representative of the population (unlike, 
for example, public opinion polls). Therefore, their purpose is not to find answers that could be 
generalised, but rather to gain insights that can shed new light on a range of issues.  

The questionnaire contained 28 questions, including closed and open questions, which sought to 
obtain  data  on  the  factual  situation  of  political  advertising  and  campaign  regulation  in  the 
country of residence or establishment of the respondent, and the respondent’s views on specific 
issues. It was divided into six sections: (1) About you, (2) Questions on political advertising and 
related  services,  (3)  Questions  on  relevant  rules  for  political  advertising,  (4)  Questions  on 
transparency requirement, (5) Questions on targeting and amplification, (6) Closing questions. 

The  consultation  opened  on  the  Commission’s  Have  Your  Say  portal  on  22  January  2021  and 
closed on 2 April 2021. 137 individuals or organisations completed the questionnaire within the 
prescribed  consultation  period.  This  summary  takes  into  account  all  these  replies.  While  not 
specifically  taken  into  consideration  in  this  summary,  the  other  contributions  on  this  topic, 
including  from  stakeholder  meetings,  general  comments  and  position  papers  submitted  in  the 
consultation are taken into account in the Commission’s assessment related to this initiative. 

Figure 1: Country of origin of the respondents 

1 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12826-Political-advertising-improving-transparency_en  

2 

 
 
                                                           
2.  OUTCOME OF REPLIES 

Out of the 137 responses received, most of the feedback was from citizens (66 responses from 
EU citizens, or 48% of all, and 2 responses from non-EU citizens, or 1.4%), NGOs (20.4%), and 
business  associations (9.5%).  They  were followed by  Other (6.5%), private companies (5.8%), 
public  authorities  (4.3%),  academia  (2.1%),  consumer  organisations  (0.7%),  and  trade  unions 
(0.7%).  

The majority of respondents were from the EU. Their six main countries of origin were Belgium 
(21.1%),  Germany  (10.9%),  Italy  (9.4%),  France  (8.7%),  Czech  Republic  (6.5%)  and  Spain 
(6.5%). 12 position papers were submitted directly through the OPC.  

Participants  were  asked  (see  the  two  graphs  below)  about  the  kind  of  political  ads  they  had 
encountered  the  most,  from  which  it  appeared  that  posters  were  the  most  common  form  of 
political ad (32%), followed by online ads (26%). 77% have seen online political advertising. 

The  participants  were  presented  various  elements  and  asked  whether,  according  to  them,  it 
should be an element qualifying an ad for the category political ad (Should definitions of political 
advertising  include  the  following:  an  advert  raising  money  for  a  political  objective;  an  advert 
attacking another political movement, actor, party or group; an ad which promoted a political 
view without clearly being a political ad (an "issues ad"); political advertising promoted in your 
country  which  appeared  to  be  sponsored  from  outside  your  country;  political  advertising  in 
European  Parliamentary  election  promoted  by  a  European  (not  national)  political  party; 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
political advertising outside an election period?). A majority was in favour each time (between 
63 and 81% support), except in two cases (an advert promoting participation in an election; an 
advert providing essential information about an election). (See figure below2) 

Further, 58.3% of respondents considered that the definition of political ads should be set in law, 

while  27%  deem  that  it  should  be  dynamically  adaptable.  Respondents  supporting  the  former 
indicate  that  a  legal  definition  is  required  to  (a)  provide  legal  certainty,  (b)  prevent  grey  areas 
and loopholes, (c) have a strong framework to prevent electoral manipulation and (d) to clearly 
frame restrictions on the freedom of expression. The arguments offered in support of a dynamic 
definition  are  (a)  to  allow  quick  modifications  due  to  rapid  evolutions  in  technology,  (b)  to 
ensure fair competition and (c) to include political contents which is not clearly a political ad on 
the  basis  of  a  fixed  definition.  Some  respondents  indicated  a  preference  for  a  legal  definition, 
which was nonetheless dynamically adaptable. 

Participants  were  asked  about  the  information  provided  in  political  ads.  They  were  asked 
whether  (a)  they  had  been  provided  a  specific  element  in  political  ads  they  encountered,  and 
whether (b) they believed such an element should be made publicly available through rules set at 
EU level (for a visual presentation of (b), see figure below):  

  clear labelling of the ad as political ad:  

o  (a) 30% yes, 23% maybe, 23% no;  
o  (b) 80% yes, 5% maybe, 6% no. 

 

information about who placed the ad:  

o  (a) 28% yes, 22% maybe, 23% no;  
o  (b) 64% yes, 2% maybe, 0% no. 

 

information about entities sponsoring or co-sponsoring the ad:  

2 Note: the vertical axis is not the percentage but the number of responses (total N=137).  

4 

 
 
                                                           
o  (a) 14% yes, 13% maybe, 42% no;  
o  (b) 72% yes, 12% maybe, 8% no. 

 

information about the amount paid:  

 

o  (a) 6% yes, 12% maybe, 56% no;  
o  (b) 58% yes, 4% maybe, 2% no. 
information regarding the use of targeting: 
o  (a) 8% yes, 11% maybe, 52% no;  
o  (b) 60% yes, 5% maybe, 0.7% no. 

  Other information about the ad: (a) 6% yes, 13% maybe, 31% no, 20% don’t know. 

o  (b) Information on when and where the ad appeared (where available): 60% yes, 6% 

maybe, 2% no. 

The  responses  referred  to  unequal  transparency  in  a  number  of  information  categories,  and 
indicated that  a  higher standard of transparency  was desired. A  majority  of respondents  (62%) 
were  in  favour  of  a  legislation  at  EU  level  on  the  funding  of  political  advertising,  mainly 
focusing  on  transparency  of  funding  of  political  parties  and  foreign  donations.  In  their 
comments,  several  underlined  the  diversity  of  legislation  across  Member  States  as  an  issue. 
Some respondents wrote that harmonised EU legislation would prevent national rules from being 
circumvented.  A  significant  minority  respondents  (29%)  did  not  position  themselves  on  this 
issue  (11.7%  maybe,  5.8%  don’t  know,  11.7%  blank),  mainly  business  associations  and 
companies.  Among  the  respondents  opposed  to  EU  legislative  intervention,  the  most  common 
reason  offered  was  that  electoral  matters  is  a  national  prerogative.  These  respondents 
nevertheless supported the exchange of best practices and the adoption of guiding principles. 

Respondents  were  asked  about  their  knowledge  of  and  views  on  party  spending  limits.  Their 
views on the rules regarding the funding of political adverts were also queried (e.g. the sources 
permitted, spending limits). 

The majority (80%) were in favour of rules set at EU level requiring all political advertising  to 
be  clearly  and  specifically  labelled  as  such,  and  (72%)  of  rules  requiring  all  the  sponsors  of 
political ads to be disclosed within the ad itself. 

70% of respondents were concerned about the possibility of foreign actors being able to sponsor 
political  advertising to  increase their own influence within the EU. 85% were concerned about 
political  advertising,  especially  online,  being  used  to  intentionally  spread  false  or  misleading 
information. 

5 

 
 
Most  respondents  considered  that  specific  measures  are  needed  to  ensure  that  the  competent 
authorities can have more effective oversight over political advertisement online (74% yes, 5% 
no,  9%  maybe).  Most  respondents  also  considered  that  there  should  be  common  rules  for 
political ads in European Parliamentary elections (69% yes, 12% maybe, 4% no). 

Respondents considered that European political parties should: disclose their ad spending online 
in real time (68% yes, 4% no), maintain examples on their website of the ads they sponsor (68% 
yes, 5% no), disclose the advert targeting services they use (72% yes, 4% no), refrain from using 
certain  technologies  which  can  be  used  to  mislead  (e.g.  micro-targeting  and  other  data-driven 
techniques,  ad  amplification,  etc.)  (55%  yes,  12%  no).  Respondents  were  not  particularly  in 
favour of European political parties having to refrain from political advertising altogether (rely 
on national campaigns only) (12% in favour, 50% against). 

They  considered  that  publishers  of  political  ads  should  retain  certain  basic  information  from 
those  placing  such  ads  (72%  yes,  9%  maybe,  5%  no).  An  open-ended  question  allowed 
respondents  to  specify  which  information  they  believe  should  be  (or  should  not  be)  retained. 
Respondents were overall of the view that service providers involved in political ads should also 
have  obligations  to  retain  and  provide  information  (67%  yes,  12%  maybe;  9%  no)  –  and  this 
regardless of whether the political ad is online or offline (79% yes, 5% maybe, 4% no). 70% of 
respondents were in favour of all political ads being made accessible to everyone. 

58%  were  in  favour  of  additional  limits  on  targeting  and  amplification  methods,  besides 
compliance with data protection rules (18% maybe, 13% no). 27% were in favour of a ban of the 
targeting  and  amplification  of  political  ads  (14%  maybe  and  10%  against).  Respondents 
preferred  an  opt-in  mechanism  (31%  yes,  10%  maybe,  12%  no)  rather  than  an  opt-out 
mechanism (11%  yes,  11% maybe, 28% no). Respondents  were broadly  in  favour of EU rules 
controlling  other  amplification  methods  such  as  paid-for  likes  (71%  yes),  bot  software  (68% 
yes), paid-for influencers (66%  yes). Provided relevant data protection rules are complied with 
(e.g.  that  explicit  consent  to  the  use  of  the  relevant  data  was  obtained),  42%  of  respondents 
thought that the targeting of political ads could be allowed for certain criteria (e.g. by geographic 
location, income bracket, gender, age, political affiliation, and general preferences and interests 
derived from a user’s online activity) (18% maybe, 29% no). 

3.  NEXT STEPS 

The replies to the public consultation on political advertising helped the European Commission 
assess the options available to improve the situation with regard to the transparency requirements 
across  the  EU  for  political  advertising.  This  assessment  was  done  in  an  Impact  Assessment 
analysis,  which  examined  the  expected  economic  and  social  impacts  on  EU  businesses  and 
citizens, as well as the expected impact on fundamental rights3. 

3 https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/impact-assessment-political-advertising_en  

6