EU lobbying spending hits record €381.7m as Big Tech leads push for deregulation

Corporate lobbying expenditure targeting European Union institutions has reached a new high, with businesses declaring a minimum of €381.7 million in spending for 2026, a 7.8% increase on the previous year. The figures, compiled by Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl from the EU transparency register, cover 173 companies and industry associations each spending at least €1 million annually among the 17,501 entities currently registered.

Big Tech outspends finance for first time

The technology sector has displaced finance as the highest-spending industry, with digital giants Amazon, Apple and Meta collectively directing €73 million toward EU-focused lobbying activities. The finance sector followed at €66.7 million, while energy companies spent €52 million and chemicals and agri-business €46.5 million. Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, ranked as the single largest corporate spender at more than €10 million.

The shift reflects an intensifying campaign by technology firms against the enforcement of European digital regulations, a push the report notes has aligned with the approach of the US administration under President Donald Trump. Since the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act entered full application, tech companies have sought to influence implementation guidance, enforcement priorities and the scope of obligations.

Deregulation agenda and the simplification narrative

The spending surge coincides with what campaigners describe as the most aggressive deregulation drive in the EU's history. Since Ursula von der Leyen began her second term as Commission president in 2024, and right-wing parties secured a majority in the European Parliament, the executive has pursued a "simplification" agenda it argues will reduce administrative burdens and help European firms compete with American and Chinese rivals.

Critics contend the simplification label serves as a fig-leaf for rolling back climate, sustainability and technology rules. Vicky Cann of Corporate Europe Observatory said the declared figures represent only the visible portion of influence activity. "Today's figures are just the tip of the iceberg," she said. "This takes place in the midst of the biggest deregulation wave ever seen in the EU."

Concrete policy outcomes linked to lobbying pressure

The report identifies specific areas where industry pressure has shaped legislative outcomes. Tech sector lobbying, it argues, has led the EU to propose legal changes that risk severely weakening artificial intelligence and data privacy rules. In April, the investigative journalism cooperative Investigate Europe reported that the Commission had copied text directly from tech industry proposals when adopting rules allowing data centres to keep their environmental impact confidential.

Energy and chemical industry spending has coincided with the revision of the REACH chemicals regulation and the delay of sustainability due diligence directives. The Commission's February 2026 omnibus simplification package, which consolidated reporting requirements under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and the Taxonomy Regulation, followed sustained industry representations that the rules were unworkable and anti-competitive.

Unequal access and the transparency gap

Campaigners argue the playing field remains heavily tilted toward large corporations. While the transparency register requires organisations to declare spending, staff numbers and policy interests, compliance is self-reported and verification is minimal. The register captures only entities that choose to register; unregistered informal contacts, think-tank funding, academic research sponsorship and revolving-door employment are not included.

The European Ombudsman, Teresa Anjinho, echoed these concerns in a 2025 inquiry. She criticised the Commission for working too closely with industry to rush through the scaling back of sustainability rules for firms, finding that the executive had given preferential access to business federations while limiting civil society input. The Ombudsman's office recommended stricter meeting disclosure rules and a cooling-off period for officials moving to lobby roles.

Post-Qatargate reforms and their limits

Transparency rules have been tightened repeatedly since the Qatargate scandal erupted in December 2022, when several Members of the European Parliament were accused of accepting payments to promote the interests of Qatar and Morocco. The Parliament introduced mandatory publication of all meetings with interest representatives for rapporteurs, shadow rapporteurs and committee chairs. The Commission extended similar requirements to commissioners, their cabinets and directors-general.

Yet the register remains voluntary in legal terms. There are no penalties for inaccurate or incomplete entries, and the European Commission has resisted calls for a legally binding register with sanctions. Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl argue that without enforcement, the register cannot fulfil its purpose. They point to recurring discrepancies between declared spending and known lobbying activities, including third-party contractors not listed by the principal organisation.

Calls for a legally binding register

The campaign groups are demanding a mandatory lobby register backed by sanctions for false or incomplete declarations, modelled on the US Lobbying Disclosure Act. They also want the definition of lobbying expanded to include strategic litigation, grassroots mobilisation campaigns funded by corporations, and the funding of third-party experts who appear as independent voices in policy debates. The European Parliament's constitutional affairs committee is expected to vote on a legislative initiative report on lobbying transparency before the summer recess.

The Commission has so far preferred a voluntary approach supplemented by an interinstitutional agreement between the Parliament, Council and Commission. A 2023 agreement extended meeting publication requirements but stopped short of legal enforcement. Commission sources indicate reluctance to legislate, citing the risk of driving lobbying activity underground and the difficulty of defining lobbying across 27 member states with different legal traditions.

The structural imbalance persists

Even with perfect transparency, the resource asymmetry between corporate lobbyists and public interest organisations would remain. The 173 entities spending over €1 million annually employ hundreds of full-time lobbyists, many former officials with direct access to decision-makers. Consumer, environmental and digital rights groups operate on fractions of those budgets. The EU's own better regulation guidelines require impact assessments and stakeholder consultations, but the weight given to industry-supplied data, on compliance costs, competitiveness impacts, technical feasibility, is disproportionate simply because industry has the resources to produce it.

The simplification agenda has institutionalised this advantage. By framing deregulation as a competitiveness necessity, the Commission has created a policy framework where industry's self-assessment of regulatory burden becomes the primary evidence base. Civil society organisations lack the capacity to produce counter-studies at the same scale or speed. The result is a policy cycle where the most resourced voices set the terms of debate, and transparency, while necessary, is insufficient to rebalance it.