Election Committee Rules Transparency Applies to Social Media Influencers
Translated & summarized from Maariv by baba
Election Committee Chairman Noam Solberg ruled that social media influencers must adhere to transparency laws for election propaganda. He dismissed a petition against the Likud party and NVP due to insufficient evidence, despite acknowledging the principle that influencers' posts can be considered campaign ads. Solberg also noted the challenges in enforcing these rules online and the need for potential reevaluation of enforcement methods. The Movement for Freedom of Information was ordered to pay legal costs.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Election Committee Chairman Noam Solberg ruled transparency laws apply to social media influencers' election ads.
- Solberg dismissed a petition against the Likud party and NVP due to insufficient evidence.
- The ruling accepts the principle that influencer posts can be considered election advertisements.
- Parties cannot bypass disclosure rules through intermediaries, Solberg stated.
- Solberg noted difficulties in enforcing online propaganda transparency and suggested rethinking methods.
- The Movement for Freedom of Information must pay 7,500 shekels in legal costs.
Noam Solberg, Chairman of the Election Committee, has ruled that the transparency requirements for election propaganda also apply to social media influencers. However, he dismissed a petition against the Likud party and production company NVP, stating that insufficient evidence was presented to prove a violation.
Solberg accepted the principle argued by the Movement for Freedom of Information, stating that publications by social media influencers can be considered election advertisements if they meet legal requirements. He emphasized that the source of the publication, whether an influencer or another party, does not negate the transparency obligation.
He further clarified that parties cannot circumvent disclosure rules through intermediaries. Solberg agreed with the petitioner that requiring a direct link between the commissioner and the advertiser could undermine the law, as candidates could easily use third parties to bypass the prohibition. The law explicitly includes "or anyone on their behalf."
The petition against Likud claimed that NVP produced propaganda for the party and distributed it through influencers without proper disclosure. The respondents denied this, asserting that the influencers posted the content based on their own independent opinions without party compensation or instruction. Solberg noted that no stage of the alleged chain of communication was proven, and the petitioner failed to establish any factual basis that the publications were produced by NVP or that there was any connection between NVP and the posts.
Solberg also highlighted the difficulty in enforcing transparency for covert online propaganda, suggesting a need to reconsider enforcement methods. He acknowledged that proving elements of the law is challenging and that new approaches might be necessary to prevent the law from becoming a "dead letter," particularly in certain contexts. Despite this, he concluded that any petition must be based on adequate factual grounds, which were not met in this case. Consequently, the Movement for Freedom of Information was ordered to pay 7,500 shekels in legal costs to the respondents.
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.
