The relationship between politics and various media outlets has played an important role in every political system. In democratic societies, the primary goal of the media is to inform the public through opinions and information. The media – to fulfill this role effectively – must be fully independent from the state and political interest groups. Nevertheless, it is evident that the media is the channel through which political interest groups can engage and influence the public. [1]

Media regulation has undergone significant transformations in recent decades with the emergence, explosive spread, and continuous development of the internet. While Web 1.0 was initially rarely updated and resembled the online adaptation of traditional media [2], the subsequent Web 2.0 turned much more towards user-generated content, thus enabling the emergence of websites such as the widely used social media sites we know today. [3] The significant and rapid growth in the number of users is well illustrated by statistical data published in 2024, which show that an average of 59 percent of residents in the European Union used at least one social media platform in 2023. The same research showed that the use of such platforms is particularly high in Hungary, with more than 80% of the population.

The transformation and development of the media in this way are significant not only because of the emergence of content creation. Both the demand for and supply of political advertising on social media sites are growing, and in terms of its nature, it is increasingly transnational in scope (see: Preamble (1) of EU Regulation 2024/900). It is precisely because of this cross-border dimension that guarantees are needed to ensure transparent and verifiable political advertising. This cross-border nature of political advertising is reinforced by the rise of social media sites, which raises further questions about the sovereignty of Member States and protection against foreign influence, a topic that was explained in a previous article.

In recent years, the European Union has placed great emphasis on regulating new areas arising from digital development and innovation. Within this framework, the EU Regulation 2024/900 on the transparency and targeting of political advertising (hereinafter: Regulation) was also adopted. However, before examining the specific provisions of the Regulation, it is essential to clarify exactly what constitutes political advertising under its terms.

Given that prior to the adoption of the Regulation there was no EU-wide definition of political advertising and political advertisements on the Internet, and as we can see in the Compilation of Venice Commission on Media and Elections, transparency was playing a key role in traditional media as well. It is particularly important to establish such a uniform definition to create effective regulations (see: Preamble (21) of the Regulation).The Regulation therefore establishes the concept of political advertising in detail, highlighting its most important conceptual elements (such as influence as an ability or as a goal, dissemination for the benefit or on behalf of a political actor) and also sets out exceptions which, if they exist, mean that we cannot speak of political advertising (such as messages from official Member State or EU sources aimed at promoting participation in elections and referendums, or providing official information to the public). It is therefore clear that advertisements and information that are not directly aimed at influencing the outcome of elections or referendums, but are merely intended to provide general information or to encourage people to vote, do not fall within the scope of the Regulation (see: Article 3, point 2. of the Regulation). It is important to note that the Regulation also includes advertisements created, published, or distributed directly or indirectly by a political actor. Furthermore, the preamble to the Regulation highlights the most important goal of advertising, which is influence (see: Preambles (28)-(29) of the Regulation).

The Regulation sets out the key characteristics that determine whether a message constitutes political advertising. These characteristics include, in particular, the content of the message, its target audience, its purpose, the advertiser, and the means by which the message is created and promoted (see: Article 8. of the Regulation). 

The aim of EU-level regulation of political advertising is to harmonize the internal market, meaning that Member States may neither introduce nor maintain transparency rules that differ from those established by the Regulation.

According to the Regulation, political advertising services must be provided in a transparent manner (see Article 6. of the Regulation). In this context, the advertising service provider must, on one hand, inform advertisers and service providers acting on their behalf whether the service qualifies as a political advertising service under the Regulation. If any information transmitted as part of the service changes, is modified, or proves inaccurate, the political advertising service provider must be notified immediately, and the information must be modified without undue delay (see: Article 7. of the Regulation).

A new feature of the Regulation is that political advertising service providers are required to keep records of the information they collect, including, but not limited to, the services provided, political advertisements related to these services, the amounts invoiced, and to ensure the accuracy of such records. Political advertising service providers are required to transmit this information in full to political advertisers so that they can comply with their obligations under the Regulation (see: Article 10. of the Regulation). Such obligations include compliance with the labelling and transparency requirements set out in Article 11 of the Regulation, including making transparency notices available with the content specified in the Regulation (see: Articles 11-12.).

Regarding advertisements that do not comply with the new requirements, the Regulation mandates the establishment of a mechanism that allows users to report them (see: Article 15. of the Regulation). This provision clearly resembles the reporting and action mechanisms required of hosting service providers (see: DSA Article 16.) by the Digital Services Act (better known as the DSA). Both reporting mechanisms must be free of charge, user-friendly, and easily accessible, and must allow for the submission of accurate and substantiated reports by both natural and legal persons.

As we have seen in the DSA rules, the European Union is trying to promote compliance with the new regulations by setting significantly high penalty thresholds for the platforms concerned (see: DSA Article 74). The EU legislator has not deviated from this approach to sanctions in the drafting of this Regulation, as the maximum amount of the fine that can be imposed is set at 6% of the advertiser’s or political advertising service provider’s annual income or budget, or 6% of the advertiser’s or political advertising service provider’s global annual turnover for the previous financial year, whichever is higher (see: Article 25 of the Regulation).

The Regulation also contains additional provisions on the delivery and advertising techniques of online political advertising activities, making it clear that platforms that undertake to publish political advertisements will have to comply with a number of new obligations from October this year. As a result of these obligations, Meta, the company that manages the most widely used social media platforms in the European Union, has recently announced that it will stop publishing political advertisements in the European Union and the United Kingdom.

Although the subject matter of the Regulation – political advertising – is now a factor in everyday life, the Regulation nevertheless plays a more prominent and decisive role during election campaigns. Can the rules of the Regulation compete with the electoral procedural rules of the Member States? After all, each Member State regulates elections taking place on its own territory and the election campaigns during those elections, which include political advertising and promotional advertising. Let us think for a second about conferred powers when the Member State grants some of its powers or competence, or at least the right to exercise them, to the EU or the entity of EU: regulating elections is not and cannot be an object of such transition. That is also clear in the light of the Treaty of European Union, Article 4. Let us therefore see how Act XXXVI of 2013 on the electoral procedure (hereinafter: Ve.) and the conceptual framework of the Regulation may relate to each other in Hungary, first and foremost in the context of the 2026 election campaign.

The scope of the two pieces of legislation is partly complementary, as the Ve. is expressly applicable and effective only in relation to political advertising that appears during the election campaign period (see Ve. 1. §), while the political advertising regulation is effective and applicable without any time limit (both during and outside the election campaign period). At the same time, an important element of the Regulation is that it limits itself with regard to competition with the relevant rules of the Member States (see Article 2(2) of the Regulation: ‘This Regulation shall not affect […] Union or national rules that regulate aspects related to political advertising other than those covered by this Regulation, including the rules on the organisation, financing and conduct of political campaigns, the rules on general bans or limitations on political advertising during specified periods, and, where applicable, the rules on electoral periods.’)

The concept of political advertising in the two legislative instruments, which adopt different approaches, leads to the following consequence: social media (YouTube and TikTok are particularly interesting in this regard) is not regulated by the Ve. Ve. covers political advertising appearing in the programs and press products of media service providers, because it refers to as the definition stipulated in Act CLXXXV of 2010 on Media Services and Mass Communication – the Media Act. (see: Ve. 146. § a). Since YouTube and TikTok are not considered media service providers under the §§ 1 and 203 of the Media Act and thus under the Ve.), advertisements appearing on social media can be assessed in accordance with the rules of the Regulation. To avoid any misunderstanding, the rules of the Ve. must also be complied with on social media (there are countless court decisions finding violations of the law in social media, e.g., Kúria Kvk.V.37.198/2014/2. in which the Kúria (i.e. the Hungarian Supreme Court) stated that ‘If the slogan published on Facebook cannot be interpreted clearly, its content or its message is not obvious to the voter, then the breach of electoral principles can be determined regarding other facts available.), but the concept of political advertising in the Ve. does not extend to communications appearing in social media (the concept of the Regulation covers any communication).

Another significant difference is that the conceptual elements of influencing voter behavior are completely absent from the concept of the Ve., even if the target audience and, in some respects, the content (promotion) are the same.

A particularly vivid thought experiment emerges when examining court proceedings and judgments in which plaintiffs have challenged the concept of political advertising under the Ve. and compared them with the provisions of the Regulation.

Due to the differences in the concept of political advertising, the reasoning set out in decision No. Kvk.III.39.055/2024/12 of the Kúria is particularly interesting. In the decision in question, the Kúria ruled that “the activities carried out by state bodies in the course of their duties as defined by law do not constitute an election campaign” in a case where the legal question was whether the slogan “everyone is from Szombathely” displayed on buses and bus stops in Szombathely constituted campaign activity.[4] The significance of the decision does not relate to Szombathely, however, it is relevant because the Kúria’s decisions are handled close to precedent. In this case, the Supreme Court found that the advertisements were commissioned by municipal companies in Szombathely. And although the Regulation stipulates that it does not compete with the election rules of the Member States (i.e., after the Regulation enters into force, it will still not be considered an election campaign activity for the purposes of the Ve.), in similar cases, the clients must comply with the rules of the Regulation because their communication would be considered political advertising, as the slogan could be used to influence the election, and municipal companies are not exempt from the Regulation’s definition of political advertising as clients.

One thing is certain: in the 2026 Hungarian parliamentary elections, voters, politicians, and political organizations will also be confronted with the new provisions, and they will be bound by the rules of the Regulation and will be able to enforce their claims. We eagerly await the practical application of European rules, in light of the challenges presented above.

[1] D. McQuail, „A tömegkommunikáció elmélete,” Budapest, Wolters Kluwer Kft. , 2015, pp. 638-639.

[2] G. Gergely, „Cenzúra Arisztotelésztől a Facebookig,” Budapest, Gondolat Kiadó, 2022, pp. 72-73.

[3] P. J. Tamás, „A közösségi média szabályozása a demokratikus nyilvánosság védelmében,” Budapest, Wolters Kluwer Kft. , 2022, pp. 33-34.

[4] Szombathely is a mid-sized Hungarian city in the western part of the country, relatively close to the Austrian border.

Márk KOLEJANISZ JD. founding attorney of Kolejanisz Law Firm in 2016. He graduated summa cum laude from Eötvös Loránd University Faculty of Law in Budapest (Hungary). He speaks English, German and Greek. At the university, he led an active academic life, winning his section at the National Conference of Student Research Groups in 2004 with an essay. He worked in public administration, in the Parliament and in various ministries, as well as in the corporate world as a public law consultant. He was the legal advisor of the Hungarian Tire Association for several years after its foundation. His areas of expertise are data protection and digital law and the law of civil society organizations, in which field, he co-authored the book ’Guide to Civil Law’, published in Hungarian.

Zsófia RÉTI JD., junior associate at the Kolejanisz Law Firm. She finished her BSc studies in Judicial Administration at the Deák Ferenc Faculty of Law and Political Sciences of Széchenyi István University in Győr (Hungary) in 2020, then finished her second degree in law summa cum laude at her alma mater. She speaks English and Russian. She has placed 3rd in the Infocommunication Law Section of the Hungarian National Conference of Student Research Groups, once with an individual scientific essay on censorship of public figures on social media platforms, then as a co-author with an essay scrutinizing the hate speech regulation of Meta.