What was pulled, and why
In early September 2026, Federal Councillor Albert Rösti (SVP) took the draft Federal Act on Communication Platforms and Search Engines (KomPG) off the Federal Council agenda at short notice. Swiss trade press reported that at least three departments objected. The Interior Department wanted a social-media ban for minors added. The Defence Department argued the draft does too little against online disinformation.
The Federal Council opened the consultation on 29 October 2025, and it closed on 16 February 2026. The delay leaves a proposal that was modest by design without a timeline.
The strongest case for the critics
The critics have a serious argument. Child-safety groups told the consultation the draft falls short on protecting minors. Switzerland has no binding platform rules at all, so a narrow law that passes can look like a missed chance to settle the harder questions once. Disinformation is a real security concern, and a defence department can reasonably say a platform law that ignores it is incomplete. If the choice were between this draft and nothing, some ministers may prefer to wait for something stronger.
What the draft actually does
The draft is a procedural-rights statute. According to the Federal Council's announcement, it applies only to "very large" services, meaning those used by about 10% of the resident population, roughly 900,000 people. For those services it would require:
- a simple way to report allegedly unlawful content, tied to offences such as defamation, insult and incitement to hatred under the Swiss Criminal Code;
- notice and a statement of reasons when content is removed or an account is blocked;
- an internal complaint procedure and access to out-of-court dispute resolution;
- a public advertising archive and transparency about recommender systems;
- a Swiss legal representative for foreign-based providers.
The explanatory report published by the communications office (BAKOM) sets out the rationale. Most of these duties protect users against opaque moderation. That is a speech-protective design. A user whose post is deleted gets a reason and a route to appeal, where today they often get neither.
Why bolting on a minors' ban is the wrong fix
An age ban is a different instrument from intermediary regulation. To enforce it, a platform must verify the age of every user, not only minors. That means identity or biometric checks, or intrusive age estimation, for adults as well. A process-and-transparency law governs how platforms treat content. A ban changes who may speak and read at all. Mixing the two makes the whole bill riskier and harder to pass.
The Defence Department's disinformation demand has a parallel problem. "Disinformation" is not a legal category under Swiss law. The draft's reporting tool is tied to specific criminal offences. Adding a duty to tackle lawful-but-false content would push platforms to over-remove, because the safe course for a company facing liability is to delete when in doubt.
Brazil shows the risk. After its Supreme Court rewrote platform liability, the EFF warned in August 2026 that notice-and-takedown and duty-of-care obligations "can create problematic incentives for enforcement overreach and over censorship of protected speech." It also flagged that the limits of a "systemic failure" standard remain unclear. The Swiss draft avoids much of this by staying procedural, which is a reason to protect that scope rather than widen it.
A better sequence
The departments can get most of what they want without sinking the bill:
- Pass the procedural law first. Notice, reasons, appeal and a local representative are uncontroversial and help users now.
- Handle minors separately. The pending report on social media and youth mental health, which the press coverage says is still outstanding, should drive a distinct bill. That bill should be judged on evidence about effectiveness and on its privacy cost.
- Address disinformation through transparency. Recommender and advertising disclosure, plus researcher data access, let outsiders measure the problem without giving the state a power to order speech removed.
Switzerland has watched larger jurisdictions regulate first and correct later. Its advantage is the chance to be proportionate. Delay costs users little if it leads to a clean, narrow statute. It costs a great deal if the bill is rebuilt as a catch-all that restricts access for everyone to reach a few harms.
The bottom line
The KomPG stalled because three departments each want a different law. The Federal Council should resist merging them. A narrow transparency-and-redress statute is the defensible core, and the other two goals deserve their own evidence-led process.