Article: How Charities Are Coping With Meta’s EU Political Ads Changes - Early Lessons From the Rollout

When Meta announced the end of Social Issues, Elections, and Politics ads in the EU, many charities expected this would force a dramatic rethink of their entire digital acquisition strategy. Petition campaigns looked especially vulnerable, as did fundraising campaigns focused on politically sensitive topics such as Gaza. Several weeks into the transition, the reality is still messy and unpredictable, but the negative effects for most do not seem as severe as initially feared.

Widespread inconsistency is the defining feature

For charities running ads previously marked as political or social issue content in the EU, there was an automatic switch-off once Meta’s new rules came into place. But their ability to get these campaigns back online has differed significantly between organisations.

Take the case of one NGO running the same lead generation campaign across several markets. In one market, the team duplicated the rejected ads, made no changes at all, and the duplicates were immediately approved. In another market, every petition-based ad was blocked at first review. However, when the team recreated a set of slightly softer-worded ads on the same topic, they were approved. A third market has seen persistent rejections for the very same content and has struggled to get the campaign running again.

Across all topics, our clients are seeing inconsistency in what will and will not be approved. Ads can be taken down abruptly, reinstated days later by Meta’s automated systems, or approved after recreating and launching an identical version. This unpredictability is forcing teams to spend more time rebuilding ads, resubmitting for review, and waiting for Meta’s moderation system to stabilise.

Many previously flagged ads can still run

Despite the turbulence, there has been a surprisingly positive trend. A large number of ads that were expected to fall under the Social Issues category are being approved without disclaimers and without major changes. This includes both fundraising ads and lead generation content — even for one client where the petition target is the EU itself. Whether this will remain the case is still unclear.

The assumed trigger words have also proven less deterministic than expected. The word “petition”, for example, has not automatically caused rejections in the way many feared.

One early assumption was that petition and advocacy campaigns would be hit hardest. In practice, donate and lead generation campaigns have been affected almost equally.

A push toward diversification has produced unexpected wins

One of the more positive developments is that these disruptions have encouraged charities to test channels they may have previously deprioritised.

For one organisation, shifting the majority of their lead generation budget into Google’s Demand Gen campaigns produced a return far higher than Meta, achieving an immediate ROAS of 0.9 via thank-you-page donations. This only became possible because the Meta changes forced us to persevere with testing - to find the optiminal technical set-up. Initial Google performance was expensive, with high CPLs and donor CPAs and there is in some ways a greater variety of set-up which can impact results. But optimization and testing has opened it up for some as finally the alternative channel they needed.

It has changed the approach to how content is produced

We have long recommended that clients prioritise rapid, low-cost video content for ads, and these changes have made that need even more urgent. For one client, extremely inconsistent rejections have led to a greater focus on producing multiple variants of the same ad. For instance, a broadly identical animated image-based carousel might now have six different versions, because we know not all will pass review.

Google’s interpretation of EU political ad rules is clearer

Google has also updated its policies in response to EU regulations, but its definition of political content is significantly narrower. The focus is primarily on EU elections and referendums, with a registration process for political groups that need to run these ads.

By contrast, Meta initially described a blanket ban. The last few weeks suggest their enforcement has softened and their interpretation may now be less rigid than first indicated. Even so, Meta’s definition remains broader and more unpredictable than Google’s.

What this means for charities right now

The changes have been disruptive, confusing, and time-consuming to navigate. Yet many organisations have managed to keep critical fundraising and engagement campaigns live, often with only minor edits. Others have discovered new opportunities on Google that they might have abandoned were it not for the push to diversify.

What’s clear is that Meta’s enforcement is still evolving, so keeping diversification at the centre of digital strategy is essential.

Need help with your Meta ad strategy (and beyond)?

The Nick Burne Digital team can help you with updating your Meta strategy and creative to work around these changes. And we can also help you with diversifying and exploring new ad channels. Book a call with Nick today - we’re always happy to have a low-pressure chat.