The European Ombudsman has determined that the European Commission engaged in maladministration by refusing to analyze a 2023 risk-assessment report on social media impacts. This finding highlights concerns about transparency, evidence-based policymaking, and how EU institutions assess societal risks from large digital platforms.
Ombudsman’s findings
Following a complaint, the European Ombudsman concluded that the Commission mishandled a 2023 social-media risk-assessment report by an advisory body. The decision states that the Commission “unreasonably applied a general presumption of non-disclosure” and did not analyze the report’s content, a lapse classified as maladministration by the Ombudsman.
The official statement is available on the Ombudsman’s website: Commission should analyse risk assessment report of social media….
Why this matters
The case involves a broader issue: how the EU evaluates and communicates risks related to large social-media platforms. As these platforms increasingly influence public debate, elections, and information flow, risk-assessment mechanisms are crucial for democratic accountability.
The Ombudsman emphasized that risk assessments are valuable only when they are examined and integrated into policymaking. The Commission’s refusal to analyze the 2023 report deprived citizens, researchers, and civil-society organizations of insight into its internal evaluation of digital-platform risks.
Debates about digital governance have intensified recently, particularly under the Digital Services Act, as previously reported by The European Times. In this context, the Ombudsman’s ruling increases pressure for stronger transparency standards across EU institutions.
Transparency and accountability concerns
- Lack of transparency: By withholding analysis and declining publication, the Commission limited public access to expert evaluations of social-media risks.
- Policy impact: Without proper analysis, advisory work cannot meaningfully contribute to evidence-based regulation, especially in areas affecting democratic resilience.
- Institutional culture: The finding suggests that the Commission may need to review how it processes internal reports and communicates advisory-body work.
Next steps for the Commission
The Ombudsman has urged the Commission to outline corrective measures. Although her decisions are not legally binding, they hold significant institutional weight. Historically, EU institutions have responded to such findings by adjusting procedures, issuing clarifications, or improving publication guidelines.
Civil-society organizations focusing on transparency and digital rights welcomed the ruling, calling it a reminder that “oversight of platform risks requires visible and accountable administrative processes.” Some observers, however, warn that reforms may remain internal unless the Commission adopts a more open approach.
Looking ahead
The main question now is whether the Commission will revise its practices for assessing and publishing risk reports, especially those with implications for public debate, online safety, and democratic integrity. Stakeholders will be watching for procedural updates, revised guidelines, and clearer commitments to transparency.
For the broader EU system, this case underscores the importance of oversight bodies such as the Ombudsman in shaping a more open, accountable, and citizen-responsive administration.
Leave a Reply