LONDON — The watchdog meant to police transparency in the U.K.’s polling industry is struggling to punish rogue firms, its own officers warned in a private meeting leaked to POLITICO.

Officers of the British Polling Council (BPC) raised concerns at a meeting last week that they lack the power to effectively hold members to account — with one comparing the way the body is currently organized to a “bowling club.”

The downbeat comments come amid fresh scrutiny of the booming U.K. polling industry. A Channel 4 News investigation in September accused JL Partners, a prominent pollster founded by former Conservative Party adviser James Johnson, of securing newspaper coverage of two polls in the run-up to elections — without disclosing their links to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK.

The polls had in fact been paid for by two undercover reporters posing as a wealthy American benefactor and his son. The pair had offered their support to Reform via Farage’s advisers Dan Jukes and James Orr.

At the time, the BPC said in a statement it was “clear there have been breaches” of the body’s rules and that it would seek further information from JL Partners. The BPC’s own rulebook states that polling companies must disclose who has commissioned their research and that those who fail to do so can be kicked out.

Three people familiar with internal BPC discussions — granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter — said members had since urged the industry body to dismiss JL Partners, arguing the pollster, which declined to comment for this piece, had committed a cut-and-dried violation of the rules.

However, the firm has not been expelled more than a month later — prompting concern among some members that the BPC is ill-equipped to deal with any serious misconduct.

One of the people cited above, from a rival pollster to JL Partners, said: “If the BPC isn’t able to kick someone out who’s so brazenly ignoring the spirit of the rules, it does beg the question: what’s the point of it?”

Crisis meeting

Jane Green, the president of the organization, laid bare the scale of the challenge facing the industry body at the behind-closed-doors meeting last week, according to a transcript reviewed by POLITICO.

She told the session that the body was set up to deal with “small, little mistakes” that were quickly corrected, but that anything more contentious would be “a nightmare” to deal with, since the BPC is “essentially a club” in which members have “agreed to play nicely.”

Without naming JL Partners, she argued there is a risk a pollster could take legal action if the BPC attempts to sanction a member — in which case she and other officers would be personally liable and could face losing their homes.

“We’ve risked our own houses, my kids’ Lego budget, all the rest of it, right? This is not cool,” she said.

The Reform UK controversy erupted at a time the BPC had already been planning to set itself up as a company limited by guarantee, removing the risk of personal liability for its officers. It now faces a wider dilemma over whether to continue in its current form or strengthen its ability to hold members to account.

Martin Boon from the public opinion research firm DeltaPoll told the same meeting that the BPC “[doesn’t] have regulatory powers or regulatory budgets, and I think we have to be careful about going down that road,” according to the transcript.

Luke Tryl of pollster More in Common said that “strengthening the complaints bit of what we do” is “really important, because I think people are now looking to the industry [to show] that we are stepping up, we are addressing concerns.”

Several members were adamant during the meeting that the BPC should not broaden its remit, the transcript shows, saying that any regulation should be carried out by the separate Market Research Society, which does hold powers to sanction members and is currently conducting a separate review of JL Partners’ conduct.

However, BPC members also aired reservations at the meeting that the MRS can sometimes be obliged to follow up on “vexatious,” complaints and has “very little experience” of political research.

Green meanwhile told those present that the BPC could struggle to deliver planned training for journalists on Multilevel Regression and Post-stratification (MRP) polls — increasingly used across Westminster — due to a lack of resources.

She said she wanted to see “clear rules of disclosure” on such polls — but cautioned that reduced bandwidth meant the BPC could now find it difficult to lead that drive.

Green also discussed an artificial intelligence agent as a possible answer to the BPC’s lack of manpower, with the tool used to scrape news organizations for political polling to check they have complied with the rules.

‘The industry’s changed massively’

Uncertainty over the future of the BPC is especially vexed as the British polling industry grows and opinion surveys play an increasingly prominent role in elections.

Smaller parties have been gaining ground in the U.K. in recent years, challenging the long-held two-party system and complicating the polling landscape.

ORB International’s Johnny Heald told the meeting of pollsters: “As one of the founding [BPC] members, clearly we set out with very good intentions to be transparent, but the industry’s changed massively … The combined turnover of all companies in this room has got to be hundreds of millions, and our [BPC] income is £4,000.”

In an emailed statement to POLITICO, Green acknowledged that the Reform UK story had “increased the salience of some of the issues amongst members,” but stressed that the BPC had already been working on reforms to its legal structure to better protect officers from legal challenge.

“The BPC doesn’t have professional staff and is run by the three Officers, so we felt there was a need to widen the number of members to increase the resilience of the organisation in cases when officers are working, ill, overseas etc,” she said.

The BPC is, she said, keen to “facilitate a conversation about the nature of the BPC, given its foundations and narrow remit on transparency, and the tenor of the meeting was to retain the existing remit, but with some steps to strengthen, and I was delighted our committee has grown in size now, with a larger team.”

Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš’ links to the agro-chemical giant Agrofert represent a conflict of interest and EU subsidies could be withheld as a result, according to an NGO’s account of a letter it received from the European Commission.

Ahead of his return to power in December 2025, Babiš placed Agrofert in a trust fund in an effort to preserve its eligibility for EU farm cash. However, that appears not to have convinced Brussels. Transparency International Czechia quotes a letter from DG AGRI Director-General Elisabeth Werner, confirming that “the Commission concluded that Mr Babiš’ situation constitutes a conflict of interest” under EU financial regulations.

The trust fund and “measures currently being implemented and notified to the Commission are insufficient” to resolve it, she adds, according to the watchdog NGO, which said it was not allowed to publish the letter.

Babiš has been under renewed scrutiny over Agrofert — a large agro-chemical conglomerate and a major recipient of EU funds — as well as other companies since his return to power last year. Babiš placed the company in a trust fund in a bid to avoid a conflict of interest, but the arrangement has raised questions from both the Commission and the Czech opposition, partly because his children would benefit from it after his death.

Babiš has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. “I don’t own Agrofert, I never will again and I don’t benefit from it in any way. I don’t know what else I’m supposed to do,” he told Czech media last month. “Apparently, even if I shot myself, it still wouldn’t be enough.”

Babiš’ office did not immediately reply to POLITICO’s request for comment about the contents of the letter.

Werner warned in the letter that Brussels would take all necessary steps to protect EU funds, “including the possible interruption of payment deadlines, suspension of payments or application of financial corrections,” according to TI Czechia.

TI Czechia Executive Director David Kotora told POLITICO that he received the letter in September. A follow-up letter from Werner dated Oct. 5 gives the NGO permission to share the contents of the letter without publishing it.

The conflict-of-interest dispute echoes Babiš’ first term as prime minister, when a Commission audit found he still controlled Agrofert. That left Czech taxpayers to foot the bill for EU subsidies deemed to be erroneously paid.

History could now repeat itself as Brussels last month froze €3.18 million in reimbursements to the Czech state for farm subsidies paid out to Agrofert. That followed its earlier May decision that it would not reimburse any paid-out subsidies until doubts about his involvement in the business could be put to rest.

Commission spokesperson Louise Bogey confirmed it had sent a letter to TI Czechia in September, but would not comment on its content. However, she pointed to her remarks at a Sept. 8 midday briefing, during which she said Babiš was in a “potential conflict of interest” and that “the Commission considers the trust fund set up by Mr. Babiš does not sufficiently mitigate this situation.”

Czechia’s agricultural paying agency, which earlier decided that the conglomerate is eligible for EU subsidies despite the Commission’s warning, said Tuesday it had sent clarifications to the Commission this week.

Agrofert spokesperson Pavel Heřmanský said neither Agrofert nor any of its subsidiaries were involved in the communication between the Commission and Czech authorities.

“The cited letter from DG AGRI expresses the opinion of one of the European Commission’s departments. It does not constitute an official position of the European Commission,” said Heřmanský in a statement, adding that “only the Court of Justice of the European Union can provide a binding interpretation of European Union law.”

He added: “We remain convinced that we have received and continue to receive subsidies in compliance with both Czech and European law.”

BRUSSELS — Privacy regulators want people wearing smart glasses in public to look and sound like a truck backing down a road.

Europe’s powerful data regulators have made stringent new recommendations on how smart glasses should alert people that the wearable devices are filming, including a combination of flashing lights, audio alerts and notifications sent to the phones of people nearby.

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB), made up of national privacy regulators across Europe, issued a statement about smart glasses on Tuesday, following a meeting in Brussels.

Privacy regulators are putting forward a united front on smart glasses, as privacy concerns about the wearable technology have multiplied since videos made with them have begun spreading online without the knowledge or consent of those being filmed.

The statement is not legally binding but will guide how privacy regulators in Europe assess whether smart glasses users and manufacturers are complying with EU privacy rules like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The regulators said smart glasses manufacturers should implement a combination of transparency measures to make other people aware that they are being recorded.

The measures may include lights or sounds when users are recording, requiring smart glasses users to activate them with an audible voice command, sending notifications to the smartphones of people nearby and other design “clues” to help people spot smart glasses.

The group of privacy regulators said that not only should users of smart glasses respect other people’s privacy but that the devices’ manufacturers and people providing connected apps or services may also be responsible for making sure they comply with privacy rules.

The GDPR applies to companies and organizations, and doesn’t apply when people process personal data in a household context. The regulators said this household exemption should be “narrowly interpreted” when it comes to smart glasses, and would not apply when someone shares photos or videos of others “to an indefinite number of persons on a public social media account.”

Tech firms like Meta have pitched their smart glasses to consumers on the basis that they are sleek and discreet. Meta has included an LED light in its smart glasses, which activates while recording, which it has said is a key privacy safeguard.

Samsung and Google have also recently announced that they’re collaborating on a new line of “intelligent eyewear” set to launch later this year, and Apple is reportedly aiming to hit the market with its own smart glasses by the end of 2027. 

The regulators’ statement could now force smart glasses manufacturers to reassess whether and how they sell smart glasses to European consumers. The EDPB called for industry-wide standards to be developed to make sure people are able to spot smart glasses and understand how they process data.

The European group of privacy regulators also commissioned a study into the social acceptability of smart glasses, published today.

Microsoft president Brad Smith calls for urgent AI regulation, saying milk and washing machines have more oversight than AI companies.

BRUSSELS — Ryanair has accused rivals Lufthansa and Air France-KLM of trying to ground the low-cost carrier by alleging that its ownership structure violates EU rules.

The two legacy airlines, which face growing competition from budget carriers, belong to the European Network Airlines Association, a lobby group that has filed a legal challenge over Ryanair’s share ownership.

“Now they’re in the Irish High Court seeking to have our license suspended and Ryanair grounded,” Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary said Thursday in Brussels.

The association confirmed to POLITICO that it has spent months urging EU and Irish aviation authorities to investigate whether Ryanair complies with the bloc’s ownership and control rules.

Under those rules, airlines must be majority-owned and effectively controlled by EU nationals or entities to hold an EU operating license. ENAA argues that Ryanair no longer meets those requirements, pointing to the airline’s March announcement that only 30% of its shares are held by EU nationals. O’Leary, an Irish citizen, holds 4% of the stock.

When the Irish Aviation Authority seemed “reluctant to engage on the matter,” ENAA took the matter to court. If Ryanair loses the case, it could be forced to change its ownership structure. The carrier’s operating license would only be suspended if it does not comply with the verdict.

Ryanair has rejected the allegations, arguing that its non-EU shareholders do not have voting rights, which means the airline is under EU control.

In an emailed statement, Ryanair accused its rivals of attempting “to restrict competition and choice for EU air travel” by challenging its operating license.

Grounding risk seen as remote

Augusto Viansson Ponte, a London-based director at Alton Aviation Consultancy, doubted that the legal case would be easily dismissed, but also said it was unlikely that Ryanair would lose its operating license.

“ENAA’s request is sufficiently well-founded to justify examination, but it is way too early to say that Ryanair is violating the rules,” he said.

Regardless of the legal outcome, Viansson Ponte said that a “likely first step would be corrective measures, not immediate grounding.”

Even if the court rules against the budget airline, Ryanair would have several options to address any compliance problems, the analyst said. 

“Ryanair could restrict non-EU [share] purchases, facilitate transfers of shares to EU investors, implement targeted share buybacks or restructure its licensed subsidiaries for example,” he said, adding that the process “should be manageable” for the airline.

Enemies in court, friends in Brussels

Despite their spat, Ryanair, Lufthansa and Air France-KLM all belong to the Brussels-based Airlines for Europe (A4E) lobby, and all are pushing for a reform of the Air Services Regulation, which sets the rules for operating in the EU, including ownership and control.

The lobby’s members jointly support providing “more flexibility … and tackle the risks linked to this change,” they said in feedback to the Commission.

“The potential way forward is to allow institutional investors from selected third countries to hold a limited percentage of shares … which would count towards the EU share of ownership,” the joint position adds. 

If EU lawmakers adopt the proposal, “that would allow a greater access to liquidity in those markets for airlines,” said easyJet CEO Kenton Jarvis, whose company is set to be acquired by U.S. investment firm Apollo.

However, the legal battle between the Irish budget airline and legacy carriers may fracture A4E. O’Leary threatened on Thursday at an A4E press conference to leave the lobby group unless the legal case is dropped by the end of the year. 

A4E later acknowledged that its members “may have differing views on certain issues, [but] we share a common interest in advancing our collective work for the benefit of European passengers, particularly in an increasingly complex and costly regulatory environment.”

Neither Lufthansa nor Air France-KLM commented on O’Leary’s threat to leave A4E.

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen was mostly unfazed watching Oscar-winning actress Mikey Madison play a character named after her in The Social Reckoning, except for one thing: the wrist warmers.

In Aaron Sorkin's new thriller, the fictional Haugen - who, like her nonfictional counterpart, leaks thousands of documents to Wall Street Journal reporter Jeff Horwitz - habitually dons the accessories. It's a character quirk that reflects real life, where they're a way to deal with the effects of a vasoconstrictive disorder. "I've figured out lots of ways to minimize how much of an obstruction this is," she tells The Verge in an interview. …

Read the full story at The Verge.

This week on “Uncanny Valley,” we discuss the voluntary AI safety agreement tech executives signed, AI agents for normies, and extremist candidates running for office in the US midterms.

The US government filed an application to support the company’s legal challenge against a fine issued under the bloc’s Digital Services Act, which Trump has described as “overseas extortion.”