Liberties, together with 17 civil society organisations, calls on Google and Meta to uphold their duty to uphold civic discourse and election integrity following their announcement that they will no longer carry political and issue-based ads in Europe once the EU’s new Regulation on the Targeting and Transparency of Political Advertising (TTPA) enters into force in October 2025. This, however, does not relieve them of their duties under the Digital Services Act and their broader responsibility to safeguard civic discourse. Naturally, the timing is no coincidence: both companies argue that the new standards are too complex or risky to comply with.

As of 23 September 2025, YouTube no longer serves political advertisements. On Facebook and Instagram, the last paid political ads will disappear by 10 October 2025 at the latest.

What does this mean for the near future?

The Dutch parliamentary election on 29 October 2025 will be the first to take place under these brand-new conditions, followed by the Hungarian general election in April 2026. We expect that, as a result of these changes, the electoral system will be less transparent and more vulnerable to overt and subtle distortions.

Last year, when Google first announced its withdrawal, civil society organisations warned that this would leave Meta with a near-monopoly in the EU political ad market. Such dominance would have been unhealthy for democratic debate. Now, with both Google and Meta stepping back, the monopoly imbalance is eliminated, but the consequences may still be troubling.

Why this matters for democracy

Both companies present their decision as a compliance safeguard. But the real-world consequences are clear:

• Civil society will face new barriers to being heard. Meta’s sweeping definition of “political, electoral and social issue ads” and Google’s restrictive rules are likely to shut down legitimate civic campaigns, including many that fall outside the TTPA’s scope. Public awareness drives, advocacy initiatives, and even fundraising appeals that NGOs rely on for survival could all be affected. In some countries, charities depend on short ad campaigns to compete for a share of taxpayers’ percentage allocations. Losing access to this tool would directly weaken their ability to carry out their work.
  
  
• Polarisation will deepen. Political ads may disappear, but the algorithms stay. Both Meta and Google run engagement-driven ranking systems that tend to amplify divisive or sensational content, while reasoned, fact-based voices, often smaller parties or civic actors, struggle to be heard. Clickbait political content (not considered advertisements) could still be amplified, while factual campaigns by legitimate actors risk being blocked under these new changes.
  
  
• Those responsible are unlikely to take meaningful action. The Digital Services Act (DSA) requires very large online platforms and search engines to assess and mitigate risks to civic discourse and elections. While both companies have formally carried out risk assessments, these exercises have so far lacked substance. Withdrawing from the political advertising market is a fundamental change to the online information environment. A company that takes its responsibilities seriously should conduct a meaningful and transparent risk assessment and adopt clear mitigation measures to show how it will protect civic discourse under these new conditions.
  
  

Our position

Civil society has been consistent. Last year, we at Liberties criticised Google’s withdrawal; this year, we criticise Meta’s too. Our point is not that hyper-personalised political targeting, the kind of surveillance advertising that undermines privacy and democracy, should continue. It should absolutely cease to exist.

Our concern is that simply walking away is not a responsible path forward. Platforms should be working with regulators, researchers, and civil society to implement the TTPA in ways that protect democratic debate. And if they choose to withdraw from the political ad market, they should do so responsibly, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Civil society organisations must still be able to reach their audiences. We do not need profiling, but in many parts of Europe, these platforms are effectively the lion’s share of the Internet. In such contexts, it is essential that civil society can connect with potential supporters and those they serve.

What needs to change

We are calling on both Google and Meta to:

• Be transparent about how their algorithms shape political content and what mitigation steps are being taken to avoid bias and polarisation.
• Reconsider their blanket bans and explore ways to allow regulated political advertising that support, rather than undermine, civic discourse.
• Ensure NGOs and other actors can continue to run legitimate advocacy and fundraising campaigns without arbitrary restrictions.
  
  
• Re-engage with EU institutions, civil society, and researchers to ensure their policies align with both the letter and the spirit of the DSA and the TTPA.
  
  

The way forward

The EU has built the world’s first comprehensive framework for political advertising transparency. But it will only succeed if the largest platforms partake in good faith. Simply walking away is not compliance. If Europe wants an online public sphere where democratic voices, not just the loudest or most divisive, can be heard, then Google and Meta must join back in the conversation.

Read the open letters here: Google, Meta