A new German law aimed at making political advertising more transparent online is facing fierce criticism from experts who describe it as overly bureaucratic and legally ambiguous. During a hearing in the Bundestag’s Digital Committee on Wednesday, the draft Political Advertising Transparency Act was widely panned.
The legislation is intended to implement the EU’s Regulation on the Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising, which has been in force since October 2025. Germany must now establish national rules specifying which authorities are responsible and what penalties apply. Violations could result in fines of up to €300,000 or, for larger companies, up to six percent of their global annual turnover.
However, these very provisions have raised significant concerns. “The EU regulation is a bureaucratic monster,” said Professor Dr. Christoph Fiedler of the Free Press Media Association during the hearing. He warned that political communication could be unnecessarily restricted.
A key point of contention is the vague definition of “political advertising.” When does an ad fall under the strict transparency rules, and when does it not? Dr. Jörg Frederik Ferreau, a lawyer at CBH Rechtsanwälte, criticized the draft for missing an opportunity to clarify this term. “The Commission’s guidelines only help to a limited extent here,” added Jochen König of Cosmonauts & Kings GmbH.
This lack of clarity creates considerable legal uncertainty. Helmut Verdenhalven of the Federal Association of Digital Publishers and Newspaper Publishers cited a concrete case: a publisher wanted to distribute a podcast featuring various political actors on Instagram, but the platform blocked it. Verdenhalven predicted a “impoverishment” of political debate and pointed to “enormous liability risks.”
The compatibility of the new rules with press freedom is particularly sensitive. Professor Fiedler called for clear safeguards for media outlets. Media organizations that disseminate political advertising should not be subject to oversight by the new regulatory body, even if they provide intermediary services. The protection of professional confidentiality for journalists must also be guaranteed.
Jurisdictional issues are another sticking point. The Federal Commissioner for Data Protection is to oversee targeting, while the Digital Services Coordinator at the Federal Network Agency is tasked with monitoring transparency obligations and maintaining a register. However, Professor Dr. Matthias Cornils of the University of Mainz noted that most supervisory powers lie with the federal states—a complex situation.
Tahireh Audrey Panahi of the University of Kassel suggested imposing fines only for repeated violations to avoid a deterrent “chilling effect.” She also proposed a public guide and the inclusion of an advisory board modeled on the Digital Services Act.
Despite the criticism, there is some support for the law’s objective. Jochen König welcomed the aim of strengthening trust in the digital public sphere. But practical implementation remains a concern. Experts are calling for significant revisions before the law is passed.
The Digital Committee will now evaluate the statements. The draft law must still pass the Bundestag. The criticism highlights that the balance between transparency and workable regulation has not yet been struck. For parties, associations, and media, much is at stake—and for citizens, the question remains: how free will political debates online be in the future?
to contribute to the smooth functioning of the internal market for political advertising and related services and to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU
an Transparenz in — Deutscher Bundestag
