Investigation Reveals Meta Harvested 6.5M Italian Voters' Data in 2022 Elections

The Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante per la Privacy) is under fire following revelations that two senior board members allegedly blocked a major penalty against Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, after the social media giant collected data from over 6.5 million Italian users during the country's 2022 national elections. The accusations, aired by investigative journalism program Report on Rai3 on April 12, 2026, have triggered demands for parliamentary hearings and raised questions about whether tech platforms are systematically distorting democratic processes in Italy and across Europe.

Why This Matters

• Data collection at scale: Meta allegedly profiled millions of Italian voters through its "Election Day Information" tool, capturing age, location, and political engagement data.

• Internal obstruction: Two Garante board members, Guido Scorza and Agostino Ghiglia, reportedly delayed enforcement action and voted against a reduced €25M fine, despite technical staff proposing an initial penalty of €75M.

• Algorithmic bias claims: An internal analysis by technicians from the Democratic Party (PD) suggests Meta's content filter, meant to limit political posts, disproportionately favored right-wing, anti-EU voices.

• Democratic scrutiny ahead of 2026 elections: With national elections anticipated in 2026, the revelations—exposed through the April 12 Report investigation—have prompted urgent calls from PD and Five Star Movement (M5S) lawmakers to investigate Meta's role in shaping voter behavior.

What Happened During the 2022 Elections

In August 2022, just weeks before Italians went to the polls, Meta activated its Election Day Information (EDI) feature on Facebook and Instagram. According to the Report investigation, this tool—ostensibly designed to direct users to official Ministry of Interior election information—became a mechanism for mass data harvesting. The platform collected behavioral data, including which political content users interacted with, how often they engaged, and their demographic profiles.

The Italy Data Protection Authority's technical department flagged the activity immediately and requested an urgent suspension of Meta's data processing operations. But according to the program's findings, board members Scorza and Ghiglia intervened, insisting the agency wait for coordination with European Union data authorities before acting. The delay meant Meta's profiling activities continued uninterrupted through the election cycle.

A similar scenario unfolded during 2023 regional elections. This time, technical staff succeeded in issuing an emergency order prohibiting Meta from sharing user data with third parties. They also drafted a sanction proposal of €75M, which was later reduced to €25M. Despite the lower figure, both Scorza and Ghiglia voted against the measure, effectively torpedoing the penalty. Documents related to the case have since been obtained by prosecutors.

Meta's Defense and the Algorithmic Filter Controversy

Meta has categorically denied any wrongdoing. A company spokesperson described the accusations as "unfounded and entirely inaccurate," emphasizing that the EDI tool is deployed globally to raise voter awareness and does not collect sensitive political information or share data with third parties. The spokesperson further stated that the system respects user privacy and does not provide Meta with insights into how individuals vote.

Yet the Report investigation uncovered another layer of concern: the manipulation of a content filter Meta introduced in 2021, purportedly to reduce the visibility of political posts on user feeds. According to the PD technical team's analysis, the filter's operation was altered in November 2024—coinciding with Donald Trump's victory in the United States presidential election. The analysis alleges this timing was not accidental, and that the filter's operation systematically amplified right-wing, anti-EU content while suppressing moderate or pro-EU voices.

This claim, if substantiated, would represent a profound breach of platform neutrality and echo the dynamics of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which data from millions of Facebook users was harvested to build psychographic profiles for political campaigns.

Impact on Residents and Political Integrity

For Italians, the implications are both immediate and long-term. If Meta's tools were used to construct detailed political profiles without meaningful consent, millions of voters may have been exposed to targeted influence campaigns designed to sway their choices. The scale of the alleged profiling—6.5 million users—represents roughly 15% of Italy's electorate, a significant share capable of shifting outcomes in closely contested races.

The controversy also highlights a troubling institutional failure. The Garante per la Privacy, Italy's primary data protection watchdog, is supposed to act as a bulwark against corporate overreach. But if senior officials prioritized protecting Meta over enforcing Italy's stringent privacy laws, the agency's independence and effectiveness come into question. Agostino Ghiglia has publicly dismissed the accusations, claiming he has faced months of "media stalking" by public television, and insisting that he and his colleagues deserve the presumption of innocence.

Parliamentary Action and European Scrutiny

The political fallout has been swift. PD Members of the European Parliament Sandro Ruotolo and Nicola Zingaretti have announced they will bring the matter to the plenary session of the European Parliament, calling for an investigation into whether Meta systematically distorted political visibility in Italy and potentially other EU member states. They framed the issue as a direct threat to democratic integrity, stating: "We are not dealing with simple fluctuations in online debate, but with a possible alteration of political visibility."

Barbara Floridia, a senator from the M5S and chair of the parliamentary Oversight Committee for Rai (Vigilanza Rai), has demanded that Meta's American executives be summoned to testify before Italy's newly established Senate Commission on Fake News. "What is at stake here is the freedom of the vote and the transparency of information," she said.

The controversy has also touched the inner circle of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. According to reports circulated by Il Fatto Quotidiano, Meloni's sister, Arianna Meloni, allegedly instructed Ghiglia to "go after Report." M5S parliamentarian Luca Pirondini publicly challenged her to deny the claim, asking: "Did she really ask Ghiglia to target Report? We will see if she has the time and courage to respond."

Europe's Broader Struggle with Platform Interference

Italy is not alone in confronting Big Tech's influence over elections. Across the European Union, concerns about digital interference have prompted a wave of regulatory action. The Digital Services Act (DSA), which came into force in 2023, requires Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) like Facebook and Instagram to identify and mitigate risks stemming from disinformation and algorithmic manipulation. The law mandates transparency in political advertising and empowers national regulators to levy fines of up to 6% of global revenue for non-compliance.

In Romania, elections were annulled in late 2024 following revelations of coordinated disinformation campaigns on TikTok. Russian and Chinese state-linked actors have been repeatedly sanctioned for covert operations targeting European voters. The European Commission has launched its Democracy Defense Package, which seeks to harmonize enforcement and close gaps exploited by foreign and corporate actors alike.

Italy's case against Meta could become a litmus test for whether these new rules have teeth. If the Garante's internal resistance is confirmed, it may signal deeper structural problems in how national authorities implement EU-level protections. Conversely, a successful investigation and penalty could set a precedent for holding platforms accountable when they prioritize engagement and profit over democratic norms.

What Italian Residents Should Know

If you live in Italy and use Facebook or Instagram, the findings about Meta's data collection during the 2022 elections raise important questions about your privacy and digital rights.

Your GDPR Rights: Under the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), you have the right to access all personal data that Meta holds about you. You can submit a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) directly through Meta's settings or by contacting their Data Protection Officer. This will provide transparency into what political engagement data the platform has collected and retained.

Filing a Complaint: If you believe your data was misused, you can file a formal complaint with the Garante per la Privacy through their website (www.garanteprivacy.it). Italian residents can submit complaints in Italian, detailing your concerns about unauthorized data collection or profiling related to elections.

Watch Your Feed: Be aware of the political content that appears on your timeline. Pay attention to whether you're seeing predominantly one political perspective or claims that seem designed to influence your views. Consider using Meta's ad transparency tools to see who is paying for political advertisements targeting you.

Questions to Ask Yourself: Did you knowingly consent to having Meta collect your political engagement data during elections? Are you seeing an unusually homogeneous political viewpoint on your feed? These observations can help inform your own digital literacy and voting decisions.

What Comes Next

The Italian Prosecutor's Office has obtained all relevant documents from the Garante, signaling that a criminal or administrative investigation may be underway. Meanwhile, parliamentary committees are preparing to convene hearings, and European lawmakers are preparing to escalate the matter to Brussels. Meta has shown no indication it will voluntarily cooperate beyond its public denials.

For Italian voters, especially those concerned about digital privacy and electoral fairness, the message is clear: the platforms that mediate political discourse are not neutral arbiters. Whether through data collection, algorithmic filtering, or outright manipulation, they wield enormous power over what citizens see, hear, and ultimately decide at the ballot box. The outcome of this investigation will determine whether Italy—and Europe—can reassert control over that power, or whether the next election cycle will be shaped once again by invisible hands.