The European Ombudsman has concluded that the European Commission committed maladministration when it refused to analyse a 2023 risk-assessment report on social-media impacts. The finding raises new concerns about transparency, evidence-based policymaking and how EU institutions assess the societal risks posed by large digital platforms.
Ombudsman’s findings
The European Ombudsman published her conclusions following a complaint concerning the Commission’s handling of a 2023 social-media risk-assessment report prepared by an advisory body. According to the decision, the Commission “unreasonably applied a general presumption of non-disclosure” and failed to analyse the report’s content — a failure the Ombudsman classifies as maladministration.
The official statement is available on the Ombudsman’s website: Commission should analyse risk assessment report of social media….
Why this matters
The case centres on a broader issue: how the EU assesses and communicates risks linked to large social-media platforms. As platforms increasingly shape public debate, elections and information flows, risk-assessment mechanisms have become crucial for democratic accountability.
The Ombudsman underlined that risk assessments are meaningful only when they are examined and integrated into policymaking. The Commission’s refusal to analyse the 2023 report deprived citizens, researchers and civil-society organisations of insight into its internal evaluation of digital-platform risks.
Digital-governance debates have been intensifying in recent years, particularly under the Digital Services Act, as previously reported by The European Times. In this context, the Ombudsman’s ruling adds 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 requested that the Commission outline corrective measures. Although her decisions are not legally binding, they carry significant institutional weight. Historically, EU institutions have reacted to such findings by adjusting procedures, issuing clarifications or improving publication guidelines.
Civil-society organisations 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, caution that reforms may remain internal unless the Commission chooses a more open approach.
Looking ahead
The central 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 reinforces the importance of oversight bodies such as the Ombudsman in shaping a more open, accountable and citizen-responsive administration.
We acknowledge The European Times for the information.
