Philip Morris just got caught deploying artificial intelligence to manufacture fake public opposition against incoming EU tobacco regulations, and the Dutch advertising authority has formally rebuked the tobacco giant for the scheme.
The ruling by the Reclame Code Commissie (RCC) lands at a pivotal moment. Brussels stands on the brink of enacting the most aggressive anti-tobacco measures in a decade and a half. These proposed rules target vapes, e-cigarettes, and heated tobacco devices, product categories that now deliver a striking 40 percent of Philip Morris’s revenue.
An earlier probe conducted by broadcaster NOS and journalism outlet Pointer exposed the mechanics behind the campaign. The company plastered tobacco shops with yellow posters bearing QR codes and the tagline “Your Voice Your Choice.” Scanning a code funneled users toward a tool that posed multiple-choice questions before offering the option to auto-generate a first-person narrative. That text could then be submitted directly to the European Commission as genuine citizen feedback.
The investigation revealed a startling pattern. Roughly 71 percent of Dutch responses originated from the AI generator, a figure exceeded only by Portugal.
The RCC took issue with multiple facets of the operation. For starters, Philip Morris bankrolled and controlled the text generator outright. Company representatives attempted to shield themselves by arguing the effort simply enriched public debate. That defense crumbled. The watchdog concluded that framing the statements as participation in a public consultation did nothing to strip away their commercial DNA.
A second violation stemmed from the content itself. The machine-written testimonials consistently portrayed alternative tobacco products in a favorable light, which the RCC classified as advertising. Such promotion directly violates the nation’s tobacco advertising ban.
Back in June, a coalition of physicians and health advocacy organizations lodged a formal complaint that triggered this review. They argued the deceptive campaign weaponized an AI tool to contaminate European policymaking on nicotine and tobacco goods.
Attorney Laura van Gijn, representing the medical professionals, highlighted the criminal nature of breaching the advertising prohibition. She described the decision as an unmistakable warning that digital manipulation campaigns cannot escape regulatory reach simply by masquerading as civic engagement, a precedent likely to reverberate far beyond the Netherlands.
