The EU Digital Services Act: what does it mean for online advertising and adtech?

Pieter Wolters; Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2503.05764

The EU Digital Services Act: what does it mean for online advertising and adtech?

Pieter Wolters·Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

What does the Digital Services Act (DSA) mean for online advertising? We describe and analyse the DSA rules that are most relevant for online advertising and adtech (advertising technology). We also highlight to what extent the DSA's advertising rules add something to the rules in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the ePrivacy Directive. The DSA introduces several specific requirements for online advertising. First, the DSA imposes transparency requirements in relation to advertisements. Second, very large online platforms (VLOPs) should develop a publicly available repository with information about the ads they presented. Third, the DSA bans profiling-based advertising (behavioural advertising) if it uses sensitive data or if it targets children. Besides these specific provisions, the general rules of the DSA on illegal content also apply to advertising. Advertisements are a form of information, and thus subject to the general DSA rules. Moreover, we conclude that the DSA applies to some types of ad tech companies. For example, ad networks, companies that connect advertisers to publishers of apps and websites, should be considered platforms. Some ad networks may even qualify as VLOPs. Hence, ad networks must comply with the more general obligations in the DSA. The application of these general rules to advertisements and ad networks can have far-reaching effects that have been underexplored and deserve further research. We also show that certain aspects of the DSA are still unclear. For instance, we encourage the European Commission or regulators to clarify the concepts of 'online platform' and 'recipients' in the context of ad networks and other adtech companies.

Explore related subjects

cs.CY

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Pieter Wolters, Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius. 2025-02-24. The EU Digital Services Act: what does it mean for online advertising and adtech?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.05764

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Printed but not benchmarkable: most building-decarbonisation disclosure cannot be matched to the pathways that stranding regulation assumes

Cities are beginning to enforce carbon limits on existing buildings. Science-based decarbonisation pathways set those limits one asset type and one jurisdiction at a time. Owners, however, report for the whole firm. We measure what that mismatch costs on two sets of public corporate reports: a census of 502 reports from the 119 listed built-environment firms with a collected report inside a 2,246-firm panel (2003-2023), and 519 real-estate reports from 101 firms (2007-2024). BeDA, a multimodal language-model tool whose reliability we test first, read them. Running the pathway frameworks' own entry tests over published disclosure: 16.5% of census reports (43.7% of real-estate reports) print an operational carbon intensity per square metre; 6.6% (25.0%) can be matched to a pathway for their property type in a covered jurisdiction; and only 5.0% (16.4%) disclose the floor area they divided by. Of the failures at the pathway test, 82-84% follow from reports lumping the portfolio together and 16-18% from a missing curve in the pathway library. The obstacle is the reporting unit, not missing data. The rate is roughly twice as high for European as for US listings (65-71% versus 35% in listed real estate). We also show that a US portfolio's carbon verdict cannot be worked out from disclosure at all. Within one climate zone, the pathway's carbon limit varies by up to 2.79-fold with the electricity subregion, which no report names; its energy limit does not move. Extraction is checked against the source PDFs (97.3% of extracted intensities appear verbatim) and repeats on a second extractor (kappa = 0.97). Recall of the non-disclosing class was 95.1% in a blinded hand audit of 122 reports. The fix follows from the measurement: split intensity by asset type and jurisdiction, and report floor area.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Incipit: Axiom-Grounded Scaffolding for Human-AI Literary Creation

Large language models can produce fluent prose from short prompts, but a direct interaction gives writers little access to the assumptions that shape a long narrative. We present Incipit, an implemented research prototype that inserts an explicit planning layer between writer intent and generated prose. The layer is grounded in literary axioms, which are curated and reusable propositions about human experience and narrative craft. The prototype connects a knowledge base of 1455 axioms and 472 typed relationships to a five round direction dialogue, a retrieval and selection pipeline, and a three level blueprint covering creative premises, story beats, character arcs, and chapter outlines. Writers can inspect and edit the resulting structures before using them as context for scene generation. Additional modules support real event abstraction and five dimensional diagnostic feedback. We describe the design rationale, data flow, implementation boundaries, and a worked design example. Because no controlled user study or independently rated output study has yet been completed, we do not claim that the system improves literary quality. Instead, we outline a future preregistered comparison designed to distinguish the contribution of axiom grounding from that of hierarchical planning. The paper contributes a concrete architecture for making literary knowledge an inspectable coordination object in human AI writing.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Automating Constructive Assessment with Large Language Models: Toward Scalable and Repeated Evaluation of Practical Competence

This study aimed to automate hierarchical diagnostic reasoning (HDR), a constructive method for evaluating practical judgment skills, by developing and testing an evaluation process using a large language model. HDR is a descriptive task that measures higher-order cognitive skills by requiring students to identify and explain errors in case-study-based problems. However, it requires expertise and effort to develop and evaluate. Hence, we proposed and empirically validated the automatic (1) generation of case problems containing errors aligned with educational intentions, (2) scoring of descriptive answers, and (3) generation of structured feedback based on incorrect answers, achieved solely through prompt design without fine-tuning. The internal consistency and construct validity of the generated problems were supported by the experimental score distribution and Cronbach's alpha (0.78). The agreement between automated and human ratings reached 100% under some conditions. The feedback was rated as being as convincing and useful as that from human instructors, demonstrating a practical framework for implementing HDR-based constructive assessment with reproducibility, immediacy, and low cost. The flexibility of large language models will also enable repeated and longitudinal assessments while maintaining structure, showing broad potential for application in educational settings.

cs.CY↗