The PROTRUST project was structured around three research objectives addressing the politicisation of EU antitrust enforcement, media framing, and citizens’ trust in regulatory institutions. The work combined claims-making analysis of media data with original survey experiments to examine how politicisation shapes public trust.
Under the first objective (RO1), the project conducted a systematic analysis of EU antitrust cases involving large digital firms to identify the conditions under which these cases become politicised. This involved collecting and coding media claims, identifying key actors and issue dimensions, and mapping patterns of contestation across cases. The preliminary findings show that politicisation increases public and institutional engagement with competition policy and plays a role in shaping regulatory responses. The analysis also demonstrates that perceived limitations in ex-post enforcement contributed to calls for stronger regulatory frameworks, such as the Digital Markets Act (DMA).
The second objective (RO2) examined how politicised antitrust cases are framed by regulatory authorities and in the media. Using claims-making analysis, the project analysed both media coverage and official communications of the European Commission and, in an extended comparative dimension, the United States’ Federal Trade Commission. The preliminary findings identify systematic differences in bureaucratic reputation strategies: the FTC relies more heavily on moral justifications in response to ideologically driven criticism, whereas the European Commission emphasises procedural and technocratic arguments.
The third objective (RO3) focused on the effects of framing on citizens’ trust in regulatory institutions. To achieve this, the project designed and implemented original survey experiments, including both vignette and conjoint designs, in collaboration with YouGov. Data collection was completed with a large sample across multiple European countries. The preliminary experimental results indicate that framing alone does not significantly affect trust outcomes, but that emotional language could potentially play a crucial role. This is because negative language may be more likely to increase information-sharing intentions, while positive language may reduce perceived credibility and agreement.
In addition to the originally planned outputs, the project generated two further scientific contributions. First, a study based on media data analysed the legislative phase of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). Second, the implementation of a conjoint experiment provided additional insights into citizens’ preferences for regulatory design. The preliminary results of this study showed how citizens across Ireland, France, and Germany have stronger support for regulation targeting harmful content and non-EU platforms, as well as for more stringent enforcement measures under certain conditions.
