Artifact GuideEU

DSA advertising and recommender systems Transparency duties and evidence

Use this page to map DSA duties for online ads, recommender systems, targeted-ad restrictions, and VLOP/VLOSE ad repositories to product controls and evidence.

Built for legal, product, trust and safety, ads, data science, privacy, child-safety, compliance, and audit teams that need a source-linked implementation record.

Author
Sorena AI
Published
May 9, 2026
Updated
May 9, 2026
Sections
6

Structured answer sets in this page tree.

Primary sources
5

Cited legal and guidance references.

Publication metadata
Sorena AI
Published May 9, 2026
Updated May 9, 2026
Overview

The Digital Services Act treats advertising transparency and recommender-system transparency as concrete product duties. For online platforms, the work starts with real-time ad labels, sponsor and payer information, targeting-parameter explanations, restrictions on profiling-based targeting, and plain-language recommender disclosures. For designated very large online platforms and very large online search engines, the same topic also includes non-profiling recommender options and public advertisement repositories.

Section 1

Scope: when the DSA ads and recommender duties apply

Article 26 applies when a provider of an online platform presents advertisements on its online interface. The DSA defines an advertisement as information designed to promote the message of a natural or legal person, for commercial or non-commercial purposes, when it is presented by an online platform against remuneration specifically for promoting that information.

Article 27 applies when an online platform uses a recommender system. The DSA definition covers fully or partially automated systems that suggest, prioritise, rank, or otherwise determine the relative order or prominence of information shown to recipients on the platform interface.

VLOP and VLOSE duties are an additional layer. The Commission describes very large online platforms and very large online search engines as services with over 45 million users in the EU; once designated, they face added duties for systemic-risk management, non-profiling recommender options, data access, audits, and advertisement repositories.

  • Separate the online platform duties from VLOP/VLOSE-only duties before assigning implementation work.
  • Inventory each ad surface, including paid placements, boosted listings, creator or trader commercial communications, search ads, feed ads, and marketplace promotions.
  • Inventory each recommender surface, including feeds, rankings, search-result ordering, suggested products, suggested accounts, and other prioritisation systems.
  • Record whether the service is accessible to minors because Article 28 adds child-safety measures and a separate restriction on profiling-based ads to minors.
Section 2

Article 26: ad labels, sponsor, payer, and targeting-parameter transparency

For each specific advertisement shown to each individual recipient, the platform must make key facts identifiable in a clear, concise, unambiguous way and in real time. The required facts are that the information is an advertisement, who the ad is presented on behalf of, who paid for it if different, and meaningful information directly and easily accessible from the ad about the main parameters used to determine the recipient.

The implementation should be designed as a user-interface requirement, not just a policy statement. The ad unit or an immediately accessible control should expose the label, sponsor, payer when different, and the main targeting parameters. If users can change those parameters, the ad explanation should point to the change control.

Article 26 also requires a functionality for recipients to declare whether content they provide is or contains commercial communications. If the recipient makes that declaration, the platform must make that commercial-communication status clear and unambiguous to other recipients in real time.

  • Keep screenshots or rendered HTML for each ad surface showing the ad marking, sponsor, payer, and targeting explanation.
  • Store the ad metadata record that supports each disclosure: campaign identifier, sponsor, payer, targeting criteria, exclusion criteria where used, placement, dates, and disclosure text version.
  • Test whether the disclosure is visible on mobile and desktop and whether it remains available for native ads, boosted user content, marketplace ads, and search ads.
  • Maintain the commercial-communication declaration workflow, including creator or trader declaration fields, moderation review rules, and the public label shown after declaration.
Section 3

Targeted-ad restrictions: special-category data and minors

Article 26 prohibits online platforms from presenting advertisements based on profiling using special categories of personal data referred to in GDPR Article 9(1). The operational control should prevent campaign creation, audience import, model features, inferred segments, and optimisation rules from using those categories for ad delivery.

Article 28 adds a separate rule for online platforms accessible to minors: when the provider is aware with reasonable certainty that a recipient is a minor, it must not present advertisements based on profiling using that recipient's personal data. The same article says compliance does not require providers to process additional personal data to assess whether the recipient is a minor.

The Commission's platform-impact guidance summarizes the policy goal as zero tolerance for targeting ads to children and teens and for targeting ads based on sensitive data. For compliance evidence, the useful record is not a general privacy statement; it is proof that ad-delivery systems, audience tools, and sales workflows cannot route prohibited targeting into production.

  • Block special-category targeting in ad-product fields, advertiser APIs, audience uploads, lookalike models, optimisation features, and manual campaign operations.
  • Document how the platform identifies situations where it is aware with reasonable certainty that a recipient is a minor, without turning the DSA rule into unnecessary collection of new personal data.
  • Keep child-safety and ad-policy reviews together for services accessible to minors, including evidence of default settings, age-assurance logic where used, and prohibited profiling checks.
  • Add regression tests for sensitive-data and minor-targeting blocks before launching new ad objectives, targeting dimensions, recommender features, or ad suppliers.
Section 4

Article 27 and Article 38: recommender explanations and user choice

Article 27 requires online platforms that use recommender systems to explain the main parameters in their terms and conditions in plain and intelligible language. The explanation must tell users why certain information is suggested and include the most significant criteria used to determine the suggestion and the reasons for the relative importance of those parameters.

Where several options are available for recommender systems that determine the relative order of information, the platform must provide a functionality that lets the recipient select and modify their preferred option at any time. That functionality must be directly and easily accessible from the part of the interface where the information is being prioritised.

For VLOPs and VLOSEs, Article 38 adds a stronger choice requirement: each recommender system must include at least one option that is not based on profiling. The Commission describes this as a non-personalised feed option for large platforms with over 45 million monthly users in the EU.

  • Maintain a recommender inventory that maps each surface to its main parameters, most significant criteria, and reasons for the relative importance of those criteria.
  • Version the terms-and-conditions disclosure and the shorter in-product explanation so legal copy, model behavior, and product UI stay aligned.
  • For each surface with user-selectable ranking options, keep evidence that the control is accessible where the prioritised information appears and can be changed at any time.
  • For VLOPs and VLOSEs, test and document at least one non-profiling option for each recommender system, including how it differs from personalised ranking.
Section 5

Article 39: VLOP and VLOSE advertisement repositories

Article 39 applies to VLOPs and VLOSEs that present advertisements on their online interfaces. They must compile and make publicly available an advertisement repository in a specific section of the interface, through a searchable and reliable tool that supports multicriteria queries and application programming interfaces.

The repository must cover the entire period in which an advertisement is presented and remain available until one year after the advertisement was last presented. It must not contain personal data of recipients to whom the advertisement was or could have been presented, and the provider must make reasonable efforts to keep the repository accurate and complete.

The minimum repository fields include ad content, product, service or brand, subject matter, sponsor, payer if different, presentation period, whether the ad was targeted to particular recipient groups, the main targeting and exclusion parameters where applicable, commercial communications identified under Article 26(2), reach, and Member State breakdowns where applicable.

  • Build the repository data model from Article 39 fields before designing the public search and API layer.
  • Keep automated checks that compare campaign-management records with repository entries for completeness, accuracy, publication timing, and one-year post-display retention.
  • Document how recipient personal data is excluded from the public repository while preserving aggregate reach and Member State breakdowns where applicable.
  • Retain API documentation, search screenshots, sample exports, error logs, and correction records as evidence for audits and regulator questions.
Section 6

Compliance evidence checklist for ads and recommender systems

The useful evidence pack shows that DSA disclosures are live in the product, that the underlying systems supply accurate information, and that prohibited targeting cannot bypass the controls. Treat ads, recommender systems, child-safety, privacy, and VLOP/VLOSE governance as connected records because one product change can affect all of them.

For VLOPs and VLOSEs, evidence also needs to support independent audit, Commission or Digital Services Coordinator questions, and systemic-risk review. The Commission's VLOP/VLOSE guidance lists audits, data sharing with authorities, vetted researcher access, non-profiling recommender options, and public ad repositories as part of the enhanced compliance environment.

Does every DSA-covered service need an Article 39 advertisement repository?

No. Article 39 is an additional obligation for providers of very large online platforms and very large online search engines that present advertisements. Baseline online platforms still need Article 26 ad transparency when they present ads, but the public searchable repository and API duty is tied to VLOP/VLOSE status.

What must a DSA recommender-system disclosure explain?

For an online platform using a recommender system, Article 27 requires terms and conditions in plain and intelligible language explaining the main parameters, including the most significant criteria for suggestions and why those criteria have relative importance. If ranking options are available, users must be able to select and modify their preferred option from the relevant interface.

What is the practical difference between Article 27 and Article 38?

Article 27 applies to online platforms that use recommender systems and requires parameter disclosure and available user controls. Article 38 adds a VLOP/VLOSE-only requirement to provide at least one recommender option that is not based on profiling for each recommender system.

  • Ad transparency evidence: ad-label UI tests, sponsor and payer records, targeting-parameter explanations, commercial-communication declaration records, and change-control logs.
  • Targeting restriction evidence: blocked sensitive-data categories, minor-profiling controls, advertiser API validation, audience-upload validation, model-feature review, and launch approvals.
  • Recommender evidence: system inventory, main-parameter register, criteria and relative-importance rationale, terms-and-conditions version, in-product choice controls, and user-choice test results.
  • VLOP/VLOSE evidence: designation analysis, AMAR support, non-profiling recommender option tests, Article 39 repository field mapping, API and search tests, retention checks, and audit-ready control evidence.
  • Governance evidence: accountable owners, approval history, incident and correction logs, supplier data-flow records, monitoring metrics, and reassessment triggers for new ad formats, ranking models, minors features, or market launches.
Recommended next step

Build an auditable DSA workflow for ads and recommender systems

Sorena can help map your ad surfaces, recommender systems, targeting controls, child-safety rules, and VLOP/VLOSE evidence into cited implementation records.

Primary sources

References and citations

digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • Commission minors guidance supports child-safety evidence for platforms accessible to minors, including recommender and age-assurance considerations.
"high level of privacy, safety and security for minors online"
digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • Commission user-rights guidance explains that large platforms must offer non-personalised feed options.
"you can now opt for non-personalised feeds"
eur-lex.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • Primary legal source for the ads, recommender, minors, VLOP/VLOSE recommender, and advertisement repository evidence checklist.
"Recommender system transparency"
Related guides

Explore more topics

DSA Applicability Test: classify intermediary services, platforms, marketplaces, VLOPs and VLOSEs
A source-grounded EU Digital Services Act applicability test for classifying intermediary services, hosting services, online platforms, marketplaces, VLOPs and VLOSEs.
DSA Article 28 minors protection guide for online platforms
EU Digital Services Act guide to Article 28 minors protection: platform scope, child-safety measures, targeted ads limits, recommender controls, and grounded evidence.
DSA average monthly active recipients: what platforms must publish
A grounded FAQ on average monthly active recipients under the EU Digital Services Act, including publication, EU recipient scope, the 45 million VLOP/VLOSE threshold, and evidence records.
DSA Complaint and Dispute Workflows for Online Platforms
Build DSA complaint, appeal, statement-of-reasons, and out-of-court dispute workflows for online platform moderation decisions.
DSA crisis response for VLOPs and VLOSEs
EU Digital Services Act crisis response guide for VLOPs and VLOSEs: Article 36 Commission decisions, Article 48 crisis protocols, mitigation, governance, requests for information, and records.
DSA Dark Patterns: interface design checks for online platforms
Article 25 DSA guidance for reviewing online platform interfaces for deceptive, manipulative, or choice-distorting design patterns.
DSA Enforcement and Penalties in the EU
How Digital Services Act enforcement works: Commission and Digital Services Coordinator roles, VLOP and VLOSE investigations, fines, periodic penalty payments, and evidence readiness.
DSA illegal content notices: what must be included?
A grounded FAQ on EU Digital Services Act illegal-content notices: Article 16 notice elements, acknowledgement, decision notices, trusted flagger priority, statements of reasons, and records.
DSA Marketplace Trader Traceability FAQ
Answer to what EU Digital Services Act Article 30 requires online marketplaces to collect, verify, display, retain, and evidence for trader traceability.
DSA Marketplace Trader Traceability Guide
EU Digital Services Act guide for online marketplaces collecting, checking, displaying, storing, and evidencing trader traceability information.
DSA notice and action plus statements of reasons guide
A grounded Digital Services Act guide for notice intake, moderation decisions, statements of reasons, DSA Transparency Database submission, complaints, appeals, trusted flaggers, and records.
DSA Notice and Action Workflow for Hosting Services and Online Platforms
A grounded DSA notice-and-action workflow covering notice intake, completeness checks, trusted flaggers, decisions, user communications, statements of reasons, appeals, and records.
DSA recommender transparency FAQ: Article 27 and VLOP options
What EU Digital Services Act recommender transparency requires: main parameters, user options, VLOP/VLOSE non-profiling choices, and evidence to keep.
DSA researcher data access for VLOPs and VLOSEs
Article 40 DSA guide to vetted researcher data access for VLOPs and VLOSEs: DSC requests, eligibility checks, amendment grounds, confidentiality, security, and evidence records.
DSA service tier classifier for platforms, marketplaces, VLOPs and VLOSEs
Classify a digital service under the EU Digital Services Act as intermediary, hosting, online platform, marketplace, VLOP or VLOSE, with EU recipient-count evidence and obligation outputs.
DSA statement of reasons FAQ
When DSA statements of reasons are required, what they must contain, when online platforms submit them to the DSA Transparency Database, and what appeal records to keep.
DSA statement of reasons log workflow for online platforms
Build a DSA statement of reasons log for moderation decisions, Transparency Database submission, complaint links, retention, and QA controls.
DSA transparency report template fields and cadence
A source-grounded template outline for Digital Services Act transparency reports, covering applicable service tiers, reporting periods, CSV/XLSX format, retention, statement-of-reasons links, and required evidence tables.
DSA Transparency Reporting Obligations by Provider Tier
A grounded guide to EU Digital Services Act transparency reports, active-recipient publication, statements-of-reasons submissions, VLOP/VLOSE reports, templates, cadence, and evidence.
DSA VLOP and VLOSE Risk Assessments and Mitigation Guide
Grounded guide to Digital Services Act systemic risk assessments, mitigation measures, audits, transparency reports, data access, and governance evidence for VLOPs and VLOSEs.
DSA VLOP Audit Pack Workflow: Risk, Mitigation, Audit, and Transparency Records
Build a DSA VLOP or VLOSE audit pack covering Article 34 risk assessments, Article 35 mitigations, independent-audit evidence, transparency reports, data access, and compliance governance.
DSA VLOP Risk Assessment FAQ: Article 34, Mitigation, Audits
What VLOPs and VLOSEs must assess under the EU Digital Services Act, when to reassess, how Article 35 mitigation and annual audit evidence fit together, and what records to keep.
DSA vs DMA Platform Rules
Compare the EU Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act by scope, designation thresholds, obligations, enforcement, evidence, and practical team ownership.
DSA vs GDPR: online-platform governance and personal-data obligations
Compare the EU Digital Services Act and EU GDPR by scope, ads, recommenders, minors, transparency, complaints, enforcement, and evidence.
DSA vs P2B Regulation: EU platform obligations compared
Compare the EU Digital Services Act with the Platform-to-Business Regulation for platform scope, business-user terms, content moderation, ranking transparency, complaints, enforcement, and evidence.
DSA vs Terrorist Content Online Regulation: notice-and-action vs removal orders
Compare DSA content-governance duties with the EU Terrorist Content Online Regulation removal-order workflow for scope, timing, evidence, authorities, and team ownership.
EU Digital Services Act checklist for platforms and hosting services
A grounded DSA checklist for classifying service tiers, notice-and-action, statements of reasons, complaints, transparency reports, ads, recommenders, trader traceability, VLOP/VLOSE duties, and evidence records.
EU Digital Services Act Compliance Guide
DSA compliance guide for intermediary services, hosting providers, online platforms, marketplaces, and VLOP/VLOSE teams: obligations, controls, and evidence to keep.
EU Digital Services Act FAQ: DSA scope, platform duties, VLOPs, reports, and penalties
Concise EU Digital Services Act FAQ covering intermediary-service scope, active-recipient thresholds, illegal-content notices, statements of reasons, trader traceability, recommender transparency, systemic-risk duties, reporting, penalties, and complaints.
EU Digital Services Act penalties and fines: caps and enforcement roles
DSA penalty caps and enforcement roles: Member State fines, Commission fines for VLOPs and VLOSEs, 1% procedural fines, and 5% periodic penalty payments.
EU Digital Services Act requirements by service tier
Overview of DSA obligations for intermediary services, hosting providers, online platforms, marketplaces, VLOPs and VLOSEs, including notices, complaints, ads, transparency reports, audits, data access and enforcement.
EU Digital Services Act service types and scope
Classify DSA service scope across mere conduit, caching, hosting, online platforms, marketplaces, online search engines, and VLOP/VLOSE threshold duties.
EU DSA deadlines and compliance calendar: application dates, reporting cycles, and VLOP clocks
Calendar view of grounded EU Digital Services Act dates: full application, user-number publication, VLOP/VLOSE designation clocks, statements of reasons, and transparency reporting cycles.
EU DSA Transparency Calendar: reporting, SoR database, AMAR updates
Build a DSA transparency calendar for annual reports, statement-of-reasons database submissions, active-recipient updates, and VLOP/VLOSE audit touchpoints.
EU DSA vs UK Online Safety Act: scope, duties, regulator, and evidence
Compare the EU Digital Services Act and UK Online Safety Act for platform scope, risk assessments, child protection, transparency, regulators, enforcement, and owners.