CIVICUS discusses Facebook owner Meta’s political ad ban and the European Union (EU)’s regulations with Anna Sienicka, Senior Vice President at TechSoup Europe. TechSoup is an international network that helps grassroots, nonprofit, small and local organisations develop their capacity so they can benefit from technology and make social change.

The EU adopted its Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising (TTPA) regulation in March 2024 with the intention of safeguarding democratic processes from disinformation. The regulation’s broad definition of ‘political advertising’ risks treating advocacy campaigns the same as electoral propaganda. Meta’s response has been to impose a complete ban on political and social issue advertising across the EU, citing implementation challenges. This sweeping approach threatens to silence legitimate civil society activity.

What are Meta’s claims about the TTPA?

When Meta announced it would ban all political and social issue advertising in the EU, it argued that the TTPA creates ‘unworkable requirements’. The company claims it cannot realistically distinguish between commercial advertising and cause-related advertising across 27 member states in real time.

Meta points out that the TTPA’s scope extends far beyond political party campaigns: its definition of political advertising includes any paid communication liable to influence political decision-making or voting behaviour, covering issues such as environment, gender equality, human rights and migration.

Meta’s position is that the line between political and social issues is blurred. Its existing policy categories, such as ‘social issue ads’, already capture a wide range of advocacy campaigns. By banning ads on both political and social issues, Meta is effectively saying it cannot comply with the TTPA’s requirements without risking overreach or liability.

Are Meta’s concerns justified?

The TTPA establishes transparency requirements for political advertising. Platforms must clearly label relevant advertisements, disclose who financed them, maintain publicly accessible repositories of such ads and limit targeting techniques. Crucially, the regulation restricts the use of personal data or sensitive categories such as ethnicity or religion to micro-target voters.

The regulation aims to increase trust in democratic processes and address concerns about opaque online influence. It doesn’t directly ban advocacy but makes transparency and accountability mandatory.

Meta’s concerns stem partly from the regulation’s broad definitions. The TTPA leaves room for interpretation regarding what counts as an ad ‘liable to influence’ political processes. Platforms therefore face legal uncertainty: if they under-include, they risk non-compliance; if they over-include, they may restrict speech unnecessarily. From a compliance perspective, global platforms may prefer to adopt a conservative blanket ban rather than engage in case-by-case classification.

Meta’s claim that this is ‘unworkable’ is however contested. EU institutions and civil society organisations (CSOs) argue that large social media platforms have the resources and technical capacity to implement the requirements. They view the regulation as a proportionate response to democratic vulnerabilities. The problem is that while CSOs are not the direct targets of the TTPA, the regulation’s wide scope leaves them in a grey zone where awareness-raising campaigns risk being regulated as electoral propaganda, even though their intent and resources are very different.

What impact will Meta’s blanket ban have on civil society?

Meta’s ban will immediately reduce access to digital advertising tools many CSOs rely on to reach audiences. Campaigns on climate action, gender equality and minority rights often fall under ‘social issue’ categories in social media platform policies. Under Meta’s new approach, these ads will no longer be allowed in the EU, limiting civil society’s ability to amplify its messages to broader publics. Meanwhile, those negatively impacting on the issues CSOs address will be unimpeded, exacerbating the problems.

Alternative channels exist but have significant limitations. CSOs can still turn to community events, direct outreach, other digital channels and traditional media, but none provide the same affordable and large-scale reach social media advertising provides. Without paid advertising options, they may be left with only unpaid posts, with unpredictable visibility that’s dependent on changing platform rules.

This creates a paradox: a regulation designed to make politics more transparent could end up silencing civil society voices. The effect will be particularly pronounced in EU candidate countries such as those in the Western Balkans, where national debates on harmonising with the TTPA are minimal, yet social media platforms often apply EU-wide policies by default. CSOs in those countries may face restrictions without having had the opportunity to shape or prepare for the rules.

Do you think this is part of a broader pattern?

Yes, Meta’s response reflects a broader pattern among large social media platforms. When faced with complex or risk-heavy regulations, these companies often reduce services altogether rather than adapt them to preserve civic functionality. This is because when compliance is costly or legally uncertain, blanket restrictions are easier to implement.

From regulators’ perspective, this can be seen as platforms testing the boundaries of the law and shifting the burden back to governments to clarify definitions. From civil society’s perspective, however, the effect is a narrowing digital civic space. Advocacy and awareness campaigns get treated the same as electoral propaganda, even though their role is very different.

Civil society warned about this problem in early 2024, highlighting to regulators that without careful guidance, platforms might respond to the TTPA by over-complying in ways that silence advocacy. Meta’s decision to ban political and social issue ads in the EU appears to confirm those concerns.

This dynamic reveals a structural challenge: when regulatory frameworks are designed primarily with elections and disinformation in mind, but enforcement depends on a few private social media platforms, the unintended consequence can be a chilling effect on civic communication. Whether this will lead to new guidance, exemptions or alternative communication channels remains an open question.