What the regulator has proposed
Coimisiún na Meán, Ireland's media regulator, has put out a draft Commercial Communications Code for consultation. McCann FitzGerald's analysis, dated 27 October 2026, says the consultation is open until 13 November 2026. The draft's own text says it "consolidates and replaces" four instruments: the General Commercial Communications Code (November 2024), the Children's Commercial Communications Code (December 2024), and two Media Service Code and Rules documents covering advertising and radio. The date on which the new code takes effect is still a placeholder in the draft. The regulator's launch date was not stated on the page we reviewed.
The legal basis is the same as for the 2024 versions. The draft cites section 46N of the Broadcasting Act 2009, as amended by the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act 2022. It applies to radio and television broadcasters. Per McCann FitzGerald, the main substantive changes are:
- A single set of children's rules for everyone under 18. The existing age tiers (under 6, under 13, under 15) are removed.
- HFSS (high fat, salt and sugar) restrictions on health and nutrition claims and promotional offers, now limited to under-13s, extended to all under-18s.
- New restrictions on alcohol-free products (0.5% ABV or less) and on nicotine pouches.
- An express ban on misleading commercial communications.
- A requirement for broadcasters to have "structures, systems, policies, procedures, and personnel" in place to comply.
The strongest case for the draft
The case for this draft is stronger than a sceptic would like. Ireland's rules had been spread across overlapping documents, and broadcasters had to work out which one applied to which advertisement. A single document is easier to read, easier to supervise and easier to comply with. The regulator also argued through two consultation rounds, in 2024 and 2025, that child protection should rest on a coherent principle. The Stage 2 response document shows health-sector voices asking for tougher HFSS rules while industry asked for the status quo. Choosing a single age line is a defensible way to settle that dispute. A 16-year-old is still a minor in law. The marketing-literacy argument for treating them as an adult consumer is weaker than the argument for protecting them. The ban on misleading advertising is also hard to oppose. Honest commercial speech has nothing to fear from it.
Where proportionality is under strain
The consolidation is welcome. Three design choices deserve more evidence before the code is finalised.
First, the under-18 tier is a blunt instrument. Moving HFSS restrictions from under-13s to under-18s does not simply add a few teenagers. It changes what counts as a children's commercial communication, which the draft defines as content "deemed to be of interest to children" or broadcast "in or around children's programmes". The wider the age band, the broader the set of programmes and slots that count as children's content, and the more ordinary advertising becomes restricted. Broadcasters fund programming through that advertising. The regulator should publish its estimate of how much airtime and revenue the extension affects. It should also say which health outcome in 13-to-17-year-olds it expects the broadcast restriction to improve. Teenagers' food choices are shaped mostly by non-broadcast channels, which this code does not reach.
Second, the alcohol-free restriction treats a lower-harm product like the thing it replaces. Alcohol-free variants of alcohol brands must not appeal to or target children, and must not be broadcast in or around children's programming. The first limb is a conventional child-protection rule. But a drinker who switches to a 0.5% ABV product has reduced their harm. Restricting those advertisements as tightly as alcohol itself risks protecting the incumbent product by making the substitute harder to promote. A proportionate rule would target branding that deliberately blurs the two, which is a legitimate concern, and would leave plain product advertising alone.
Third, nicotine pouches get a narrower rule than alcohol-free drinks. The pouch restriction applies only "during" children's programming, while the alcohol-free rule applies "in or around" it. The two rules protect children to different degrees, and the draft does not explain why. Whether the difference is deliberate is a fair question for the consultation.
The compliance burden falls unevenly
The draft replaces "systems and controls" with a duty to maintain "structures, systems, policies, procedures, and personnel". It also replaces product-specific due-diligence rules with a general duty to take "proportionate, reasonable and appropriate measures". A large broadcaster can absorb that. A small local radio station may not have a compliance officer to appoint. The regulator should say what a proportionate structure looks like for a station of ten people, ideally with worked examples.
The draft also drops some existing duties. The rule against asking children for private information about themselves or their family is not carried over, and neither is the obligation to publish a list of programmes carrying alcohol advertising. Dropping duties is not wrong in itself. But the regulator should explain each removal, so that consolidation does not quietly become deregulation. This is especially true for the children's privacy rule, where the case for keeping it is strong.
What to watch
The draft regulates broadcasters, who are already licensed and supervised. The environments where under-18s spend most of their time are outside its scope. A stricter broadcast rule that moves ad spend to channels with fewer rules would protect fewer children than it appears to. That is the central test of this consultation. Respondents have until 13 November 2026 to ask the regulator for impact figures on the age extension, for a justification of the alcohol-free and nicotine-pouch asymmetry, and for guidance on proportionate compliance for small stations.