Netherlands: Philip Morris's AI advertising campaign deemed illegal

On August 7, 2026, the Dutch Advertising Code Commission (Reclame Code Commissie, RCC) ruled that the "Your voice, your choice" campaign conducted by Philip Morris International violated the ban on advertising tobacco products.[1]. Deployed in Dutch tobacconists, the campaign invited customers to generate, using an artificial intelligence tool funded and owned by the manufacturer, first-person comments opposing stricter European regulations, before submitting them to the public consultation launched by the European Commission. Following a complaint filed by a group of doctors, the Regulatory Commission (RCC) ruled that presenting these messages as a call for citizen participation did not negate their commercial nature. This decision comes as work continues in Brussels on revising the European framework applicable to tobacco and nicotine products, the outcome of which directly impacts the industry's business model.

An influence tool presented by the manufacturer as an exercise in participation

The campaign relied on yellow posters bearing a QR code and the slogan "your voice, your choice," displayed in tobacconists and other high-traffic areas, as well as access via the IQOS website. Users were asked about their smoking status, consumption habits, and public policy preferences before a generator produced a first-person written contribution, ready to be sent to the European Commission. The survey was published in June 2026 by the public broadcaster NOS and the investigative platform... Point The analysis highlighted the biased nature of the process: eleven of the twelve proposed "important aspects" produced arguments against stricter regulations. Similarly, all the additional concerns and generated texts included statements not selected by the user, notably regarding the "lesser harmfulness" of other nicotine products: heated tobacco, vaping devices, and nicotine pouches. Of the 370 contributions attributed with a high degree of certainty to this tool, only six supported stricter regulations.

The volumes recorded demonstrate the scale of the process: the consultation launched by the European Commission collected more than 80,000 contributions in one month.[2], This is significant, especially considering that comparable consultations attract fewer than a thousand responses. Of the more than 65,000 responses analyzed in fifteen Member States, 35 were identified as very likely to have been generated entirely by artificial intelligence. In the Netherlands, 71 of the 786 contributions examined fell into this category, followed by France and Portugal. Furthermore, nine out of ten Dutch-language responses were attributable to the manufacturer's AI generator. The European Commission expressed its deep concern, reiterating that citizens' views must not be manipulated or distorted.

A complaint filed by healthcare professionals and organizations

In the Netherlands, the complaint was filed on June 5, 2026.[3] by a group of doctors and health organizations. Danielle Cohen, a pulmonary pathologist at Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), denounced a system that gives the appearance of individual expression while steering responses in a predetermined direction. The interface offers numerous options for opposing the regulation, compared to only one for supporting it. Hans Snijder, director of the Hartstichting cardiology foundation, saw it as a coordinated lobbying campaign by an industry responsible for millions of deaths each year.

The controversy wasn't limited to the advertising sphere. Legal counsel for the plaintiffs reported to the Dutch Data Protection Authority that the processing of data was deemed non-compliant with the GDPR, as the tool used for the campaign collected sensitive information on individuals' tobacco and nicotine consumption. Simultaneously, the Dutch Alliance for a Tobacco-Free Generation, which includes Hartstichting, the Dutch Cancer Society, and the Longfonds Lung Fund, filed a complaint with the Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA). On the political front, members of parliament from six different parties called on the government to oppose the campaign, with the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport, Sophie Hermans, deferring the implementing decisions to Parliament and the NVWA.

An advisory veneer that does not negate the commercial nature of the product.

In its defense, Philip Morris argued that the campaign aimed to encourage citizen participation in public debate. The regulatory body rejected this argument. It noted that the text generator was funded and owned by the manufacturer, and that the contributions produced presented the new tobacco and nicotine products—vaping, heated tobacco, and nicotine pouches—in a favorable light. These elements are sufficient to classify the campaign as advertising, which is prohibited in the Netherlands. The fact that the messages were framed as a call for public consultation, the Regulatory Commission emphasized, does not alter their commercial nature.

Laura van Gijn, the lawyer representing the group of doctors, points out that violating the ban on tobacco advertising is a criminal offense under Dutch law. She believes this decision sends a clear message to the tobacco industry: digital influence campaigns are not exempt from the ban, even when they masquerade as citizen participation. She considers this precedent applicable to similar campaigns conducted elsewhere in Europe.

A decision that sheds light on a blind spot in the European review

The implications of this case extend beyond the Netherlands. The public consultations organized by the European Commission are a formal step in the legislative process, intended to reflect the expression of diverse interests. The manipulation of these consultations through automated tools funded by a private company undermines the representativeness of the responses collected and causes delays, even though the process is already lengthy and is being deliberately slowed down by industry players opposed to stricter regulations. The revisions currently being prepared in Brussels, described by the Dutch press as the most significant in fifteen years, specifically concern alternative cigarette products, which now account for approximately 40% of Philip Morris International's revenue.

This situation also illustrates the limitations of national control over campaigns designed on a European scale: the same advertising campaign, deployed simultaneously in several Member States, falls under no single authority and can only be addressed piecemeal, decision by decision, jurisdiction by jurisdiction. Finally, it underscores the scope of Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which requires parties to protect the development of public health policies from the commercial interests of the tobacco industry—a requirement that extends to indirect forms of participation when these mobilize citizens as conduits for industry positions.

©Generation Without Tobacco

AE

[1] Tabaksgigant Philip Morris krijgt tik op de vingers voor omstreden AI-campaign, NOS, published on August 7, 2026, accessed on August 11, 2026

[2] Philip Morris used AI to flood the European tobacco consultation, Tobacco-Free Generation, published on June 30, 2026, accessed on August 11, 2026

[3] Doctors slam “misleading” Philip Morris tobacco campaign, Dutch News, published on June 5, 2026, accessed on August 11, 2026