A 571-page study commissioned by the European Commission concludes that the Digital Markets Act has not given advertisers meaningful access to the pricing and performance data held by Google, Meta and Amazon. Released on October 29, it is advice rather than law, and it does not state the Commission's official position. It does give Brussels a list of options, including tighter data rules for gatekeepers.
What the study found
The report was prepared by the consultancy AWO for the Commission's DG CNECT, with the manuscript completed in April 2026. It draws on interviews with 60 stakeholders, including Meta, and a survey of 50 advertisers in six countries. That is a small sample, and 74% of respondents worked at companies with 250 or more staff, so treat the percentages as a signal rather than a market measure.
Only 58% of surveyed advertisers said the three gatekeepers provide raw data, such as log-level data, that would allow their own verification. Access varied widely by metric: 82% said they always had impression data, against 46% for conversions, 45% for frequency and 18% for attribution. On pricing, advertisers split evenly, with 48% saying they had enough information to understand prices and why they move and 48% saying they did not.
The findings closest to Meta
The study says Meta has not introduced placement transparency for Audience Network comparable to what Google added for Performance Max and the Search Partner Network in 2025. Among those who answered, Facebook ranked worst for brand safety at 30.6% and for ad fraud at 32.7%.
Automation drew mixed feedback. Some 48% of respondents had used Advantage+, and across AI targeting tools 56% reported a performance increase. Yet 62% worried about losing control over targeting and 46% said performance is harder to verify. One advertiser, quoted in the study, described it as "giving the auctioneer all our money."
What Brussels could do with it
The recommendations start with powers the Commission already holds. Under the DMA it could specify what gatekeepers must hand over, and the study's list includes:
- Ad placement data, including the URL of each ad and the content it appeared next to.
- A transaction ID so platform data can be matched to an advertiser's own records.
- Independent collection of data by verification providers.
- Auction transparency, such as minimum bid prices and the number of advertisers in an auction.
What it means for your reporting
Nothing changes in Ads Manager because of this report, and no timetable comes with it. The more drastic idea, separating buy-side and sell-side businesses, is aimed mainly at Google and would need further study and an impact assessment.
The practical value is as a benchmark. The study puts numbers on what many buyers already work around: 96% of respondents relied on the platforms' built-in measurement, and only 34% used third-party providers. If your reporting to clients rests on platform-reported conversions alone, you are in the majority, and you are also relying on the data the study says is hardest to check independently.
One smaller finding is worth acting on. Under half of respondents knew the DSA ad repositories exist, and of the 26% hit by scam or IP-infringing ads, none reported using them to find those ads. Meta's Ad Library is free to search for brand impersonation.
What it means for you
- No rule has changed yet; the report is a menu of options for the Commission.
- Keep your own conversion records so platform numbers can be checked against them.
- Review Audience Network placement if brand safety matters to the account.
- Search the Ad Library regularly for ads impersonating your brand.
