The German government has given the green light in the cabinet to a draft bill that would allow searches of newsrooms and the premises of digital platforms without a prior court order under certain circumstances.
According to press reports, the initiative is presented as a technical transposition of European rules on transparency in political advertising. However, it has sparked intense legal and political controversy due to the breadth of the powers it would grant to the administration.
The proposed Political Advertising Transparency Act aims to incorporate into national law the EU regulation governing the dissemination of political advertising online. Its stated purpose is to strengthen transparency, traceability of funding, and data protection in political messaging. In practice, however, the draft goes well beyond mere disclosure obligations and directly affects the operations of media organisations and technology platforms.
The most controversial aspect of the proposal is the strengthened role of the Bundesnetzagentur, which already acts as the digital supervisory authority under the Digital Services Act. Under the draft law, the agency would be able to order inspections of companies and entities that disseminate or facilitate political advertising if it deems that they have failed to provide the required documentation.
In cases of “imminent danger,” such inspections could be carried out during business hours even without prior judicial authorisation. The draft itself acknowledges that this power restricts the fundamental right to the inviolability of the home enshrined in Germany’s Basic Law—an admission that has intensified criticism from constitutional lawyers and press associations.
Experts in constitutional law warn that the proposal represents a disproportionate expansion of administrative powers. They stress that searches and seizures are instruments typically reserved for criminal investigations and that their use by a regulatory authority—without prior judicial oversight—is particularly problematic when it may affect newsrooms protected by enhanced guarantees of press freedom and professional confidentiality.
The European context further fuels the controversy. The EU regulation provides for fines of up to 6% of global annual turnover for violations of political advertising rules. Faced with complex requirements and the ambiguity surrounding the definition of “political advertising,” major platforms such as Google and Meta have chosen to restrict this type of content in several markets.
The Ministry for Digital Affairs defends the draft bill by arguing that similar mechanisms exist in other areas of economic regulation and data protection, where administrative inspections without a court order are permitted in exceptional cases. The government insists that the aim is not to interfere with journalistic work but to comply with European obligations and safeguard the integrity of democratic processes.
Opposition reaction has been fierce. The leader of Alternative für Deutschland, Alice Weidel, has accused the government of using the Digital Services Act framework to introduce what she describes as a “censorship hammer.” According to Weidel, merely suspecting a media outlet of spreading “disinformation” could be enough to justify a search of its newsroom—something she considers incompatible with the standards of a liberal democracy.
Weidel argues that the real aim of the legislation is not only to regulate political advertising but to exert pressure on critical media and content creators. In her view, even the opening of investigations would have an intimidating effect, given the highly politicised environment and the significant public exposure such proceedings would entail.
