On 27th November, Google announced it would stop carrying political ads in the EU before new political advertising regulations kick in next year.
Google currently has a «weak» definition of political ads (essentially they’re ads run by national parties and candidates during election periods), versus Meta’s rather stronger one (the wider «political and issue ads» running at any time). An expansion of the legal definition in the EU would likely require Google to verify more advertisers, properly understand who is and isn’t a political advertiser (for example by including candidates during local elections) and dramatically improve its transparency offering. This obviously comes at some cost, particularly if they don’t have much time to make the necessary changes.
This seems like the sort of decision a private company like Google should be allowed to take. It’s their money (or not, if they decide they don’t want it), so it’s their choice. If following the regulation will cost them more than they’ll make from accepting ads, the logical reaction is to bow out of the market.
In recent years TikTok and Microsoft have also both chosen to pass on accepting political ads (though they did so well before the regulation was agreed), but Google choosing to leave the EU political ad market leaves just one major player (Meta) behind as an effective monopolist. The result is a market that’s bad for political speech, with fewer ways to reach audiences, higher prices for campaigns and less innovation.
The question is – should these companies be forced to be in the political ad market?
In the US, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), who regulate the airwaves, require that candidates are able to get equal access to TV and radio advertising time for a fair price within specified periods before elections. Political ads are understood to be (and courts have supported this) «in the public interest». The FCC doesn’t review the content of the ads, or approve them before they air, only requiring that candidates «stand by their message» (which is why you usually hear American candidates quickly mutter «I’m Joe Logan and I approve this message» at the end of a TV ad). Provided the candidate meets these simple conditions, they get to buy ads, and there’s nothing a regulated TV station can do about it.
So what should the EU do? As we see it, it has three options.
The first is to accelerate the creation of the new rules, create clear examples of what it considers to be (and not to be) a political ad, explain what tolerance there will be in enforcement (this will never be a black and white issue) and set the expected transparency and other standards. Though unlikely, with the rules clarified, Google (and others) may have the certainty they need to reverse their decision.
The second option is to water down the implementation of the new regulation to the extent that it’s barely useful. For example, it’s not yet very clear how the regulation will be enforced. They could leave it that way, such that the regulation exists, but in name only. Again, this might make it easier for Google, TikTok and Microsoft decide to (re)enter the market.
The third is to require that platforms must allow candidates and campaigns to freely express their ideas through ads. Platforms would no longer be allowed to treat political ads differently to non-political ones simply because of their content. This might not be possible through the political advertising regulation alone, needing a different mechanism to force the companies to accept ads (for example, is there a politician willing to sue a platform for the right to have their paid speech carried?). It’s
A further difficulty with choosing between these options is their differential impact across Europe. Forcing more political ads on Hungary probably just reinforces the Budapest government’s ability to dominate the entire media spectrum and blast citizens with even more pro-government propaganda. Fewer digital political ads might allow Hungarian citizens a little respite from such relentless messaging (though they’ll still be confronted with it everywhere else).
In many other countries however, paid ads can help more centrist/traditional parties counter the large followings, high levels of engagement and apparent algorithmic advantages sometimes enjoyed by more populist/extreme parties and candidates. They can also help to reduce the gap between challengers and incumbents by helping new entrants into politics gain name recognition, making for greater political competition.
As always, there’s no perfect answer, with each case and option exposing the various trade-offs involved. (If you really want our view, the first option seems most likely, and if that doesn’t eventually create a more competitive market, the third one should come into play).
There are many more people who dislike political ads than like them. Few will ride to their defence. We think they can be useful, are normally pretty benign, though there are harmful exceptions. Democratically agreed regulation designed to negate the harms and preserve the positives is the solution we’ve been waiting for since 2016. Until now, the platforms’ have publicly said the same. Google’s decision to try to duck the impact of the EU’s new law is therefore particularly frustrating.
However, with more focus on TikTok’s role in the recent Romanian presidential election under the spotlight, specifically the idea that the platform was rife with off-book paid political ads and that these ultimately influenced the outcome, it’s clear that services who don’t wish to allow political ads can really only run from the issue – they can’t fully hide. Google, TikTok and Microsoft will have rejected legitimate political ads, while struggling to stop the illegitimate ones.
By October next year, Europe will have an online political ad market with a single main player, surrounded by a black market of unknown size and impact. The Commission needs to use the implementation period for the new political ad regulation to work out how to create a better market – with many players, each with the proper focus on authenticity, transparency and safety.
This may mean forcing services to accept political ads after all.