For years, the European Union (EU) has attempted to regulate the power of major technology platforms, trying to find the middle ground between self-regulation, preferred by the platforms, and protection of citizens. Last year, Brussels targeted political advertising online, adopting the Regulation on the Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising (TTPA). Meta’s response was a complete ban on political, electoral, and social issue advertising in the EU.
The EU’s recent Regulation on the Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising (TTPA) establishes EU-wide rules governing political advertising across European, national, regional, and local levels. Its core objective is transparency, as well as limitations on advertising practices that have long been criticized for enabling manipulation and foreign interference in democratic processes.
Under the regulation, platforms and advertisers must clearly disclose who is behind a political advertisement, how it is funded, and on what basis audiences are targeted. The intent behind is to reduce hidden influences and funding streams, as well as protect electoral integrity.
Meta’s Response
Meta Platforms responded by announcing that, starting in early October 2025, it would no longer permit political, electoral, or social issue advertising within the European Union at all.
In a public statement, the company described the move as a “difficult decision,” taken in response to what it characterized as “significant operational challenges and legal uncertainties” introduced by the TTPA. According to Meta, the new targeting restrictions make political advertising less effective and more complex to implement in compliance with EU law.
While the company says that it remains committed to political expression and fair elections, and will continue to allow organic political content, paid political advertising in the EU has been discontinued entirely. The ban applies only within EU member states.
At first glance, the decision appears to exceed the requirements of the regulation. Instead of adapting its systems to comply, Meta has opted to withdraw the service altogether.
Political Ads Still There
However, the removal of officially labeled political ads in practice does not mean that paid political advertising will cease.
An analysis by the Hungarian research organization Political Capital found that, despite Meta’s October 2025 ban, 14 parliamentary candidates from Hungary’s ruling party Fidesz ran at least 162 political ads on Facebook in January 2026 that were not flagged or removed. Out of 181 ads placed, Meta classified and removed only 19 as political.
The remaining advertisements avoided explicit party branding. Instead, they promoted surveys, local events, government initiatives, or content centered on personal image-building.
Szilárd Teczár from the Hungarian fact-checking also outlet Lakmusz told SEE Check that they are monitoring whether political actors attempt to circumvent the new rule and have already identified numerous cases of infringement.
Collateral Damage: Fact-Checkers and Civil Society
The consequences extend beyond political parties.
In practice, Meta’s blanket ban also prevents fact-checkers and civil society organizations from promoting content that touches on public policy, elections, or governance, even when their goal is to counter disinformation.
Faktograf.hr, a fact-checking outlet from EU member Croatia, experienced this firsthand.
Jordi Ilić, social media and design specialist at Faktograf, told SEE Check that when Meta introduced the ban in October, none of their ads were initially approved.
“Immediately after the ban, not a single advertisement was approved. We had to adjust our approach, but we eventually managed to relaunch campaigns,” Ilić explained.
She also observed inconsistencies in enforcement.
“In most cases, ads related to domestic and European politics pass without issue. But when we try to run ads concerning United States politics — particularly those involving U.S. President Donald Trump — nothing gets through. For example, all advertisements for articles analyzing Trump’s threats toward Greenland were rejected.”
Reduced Transparency
Fundación Maldita in Spain has not been directly affected, as it does not rely on paid promotion in the same way. However, Carlos Hernández-Echevarría from the organization also notes transparency concerns.
“What we have been tracking is that the decision, far from removing political ads in the EU of which there are many, just means that they don’t get labeled as political, thus significantly reducing the amount of information available about who is behind the ad and who was affected by it,” he told SEE Check.
In other words, when ads are no longer categorized as political, they also escape transparency tools that allow researchers, journalists, and citizens to track funding sources, targeting criteria, and spending.
Hernández-Echevarría argues that this dynamic paradoxically makes it harder for law-abiding NGOs to participate in public debate while granting greater obscurity to actors seeking to shape political narratives through less explicit means.
Regulation and Responsibility
The EU’s TTPA was designed to protect democratic processes from manipulation and hidden influences. Yet Meta’s response shows that even when regulation can be designed to constrain abuse, platforms can answer in unexpected ways, negating the intended purpose of regulation.
Meta’s withdrawal simplifies its compliance obligations but it does not necessarily benefit the information environment nor acts in the spirit of the regulation.
Political actors may adapt by reframing content to avoid classification. Civil society organizations must adapt communication strategies. Researchers lose access to structured transparency data. And citizens are left navigating a digital space in which political influence still exists, but is less clearly named.
