Skip to main content
v2026.11,986 entries · CC-BY 4.0

Editorial · CASRAI · AI and ML research outputs

EU opens consultation on draft DSA election guidelines covering generative AI

On 10 November 2026 the European Commission opened a consultation, running to 23 November, on draft revised Digital Services Act election guidelines addressing generative-AI and information-manipulation risks on very large platforms.

Published 13 Nov 2026· 3 minute read

Ask CASRAI · free to try

Ask about this story

Ask your first 2 questions free below. Subscribers get 150 a day for $29 a month.

An AI assistant specialized in research administration. It cites the sources behind every answer, labels web answers and says when it can't answer.

Answers draw on CASRAI's guides and dictionary plus the federal and funder documents we index: Federal Register, Grants.gov, Regulations.gov and UKRI.

Works on this site and inside Claude, Cursor and the AI tools you already use.

Everything CASRAI publishes — this page, the dictionary, the guides and the news — stays free to read, with no account and no card.

CASRAI is the reference for research administration — bookmark it for the next question.

What happened

On 10 November 2026 the European Commission opened a targeted consultation on draft revised election guidelines under the Digital Services Act (DSA). The draft sets out measures that Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSEs) should take against generative-AI and information-manipulation risks to electoral processes. According to the Commission’s consultation page, submissions are open to “all stakeholders with relevant experience and expertise” until 23 November 2026, through an EU Survey form.

Key details

  • Dates: opened 10 November 2026; closes 23 November 2026.
  • Background: the first election guidelines for VLOPs and VLOSEs were adopted in 2024 under Article 35 of the DSA. The Commission says the update responds to new technology and a fast-changing threat landscape, answers a European Council call for a swift revision, and builds on lessons since 2024 and on the Code of Conduct on Disinformation, including its Rapid Response System.
  • Foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI): stronger defences, including early detection of coordinated inauthentic behaviour and dismantling the networks behind it.
  • Recommender systems: spotting suspicious trends before they go viral, testing algorithms for manipulation before each national election, and logging recommender changes in the six months before a vote.
  • AI-generated content: clear deepfake labels that stay attached when content is shared, and fast removal of illegal deepfakes of candidates.
  • Candidate protection: dedicated reporting channels and swift handling of threats, harassment and impersonation, applied even-handedly to all candidates.
  • Accountability: reports to the Commission and national authorities within 30 days after an election on risk mitigation, plus a public version.

The Commission describes the guidelines as content-neutral: they do not ask platforms to delete lawful content or single out any viewpoint. The Brussels Times, which reported the consultation on 10 November 2026, describes the draft in similar terms.

What it means for researchers and research offices

The consultation page does not mention researchers or data access, and this article does not claim the draft changes any researcher access arrangements. Its relevance to the research community is indirect but real:

  • Expertise is the stated audience. The call is for stakeholders with relevant experience and expertise. Groups studying disinformation, coordinated inauthentic behaviour, recommender-system auditing, synthetic media detection or election-related online harassment are natural contributors, with evidence from their own published work.
  • Measurability. Proposals such as pre-election algorithm testing, recommender-change logs and post-election reports raise questions of what is measured, how, and whether outsiders can verify it. Researchers can comment on the clarity and testability of these provisions.
  • Short window. With a two-week consultation, research offices that want to support a response (for example, by coordinating a unit-level or consortium submission, or checking institutional policy on public policy statements) have little time.

Practical steps: read the draft from the Commission page, identify the sections that match published findings from your group, and submit through the EU Survey form before 23 November 2026. Keep responses specific, cite peer-reviewed or otherwise public evidence, and separate evidence from opinion.

What to watch

  • Whether the Commission publishes a summary of responses or a revised text after the consultation closes.
  • The adoption date and any application timing of the final revised guidelines; the consultation page gives none.
  • How the post-election reporting and the public version of those reports are structured once the guidelines are final.

Sources

Referenced across the research world

University of Cambridge logoColumbia University logoCrossref logoUniversity of Edinburgh logoHarvard University logoUniversity of Oxford logoPrinceton University logoStanford School of Medicine logoUniversity College London logoORCID logoUniversity of Cambridge logoColumbia University logoCrossref logoUniversity of Edinburgh logoHarvard University logoUniversity of Oxford logoPrinceton University logoStanford School of Medicine logoUniversity College London logoORCID logo
  • University of Cambridge logo
  • Columbia University logo
  • Crossref logo
  • University of Edinburgh logo
  • Harvard University logo
  • University of Oxford logo
  • Princeton University logo
  • Stanford School of Medicine logo
  • University College London logo
  • ORCID logo

View CASRAI adoption →