Skip to content

Where are you from?

Choose your province and we will tell you how the deputies and senators you elected vote, one by one.

 

We remember it in this browser. If you create an account, we keep it there.

Type a law, a topic, a person or a province.

What it is

Bill would ban unhealthy food ads aimed at minors

Admitted step 2 of 7 · Rejected

It is a members’ bill. Introduced by parliamentary groups, the Senate, regional governments or citizens. It was introduced on 17 April 2026. Introduced by: Grupo Parlamentario Plurinacional SUMAR.

Official title: Private member's bill for the promotion of the consumption of healthy food and beverages.

Source: Congreso de los Diputados, file 122/000275· updated 11 Nov

Automatic summary, not yet reviewed

  1. The bill would ban advertising for foods and drinks that do not meet the WHO nutrient profiles whenever it could reach people under 18, on any medium: TV, internet, streets, social media or packaging. It would also be banned inside and within 150 meters of schools, playgrounds, sports centers and similar spaces.
  2. It would ban selling or giving energy drinks with high caffeine content to anyone under 16, and to those under 18 if they exceed 32 mg of caffeine per 100 ml. Their advertising would be heavily restricted and must carry a visible health warning.
  3. All advertising for foods and drinks exceeding WHO limits would have to carry warnings such as "High in sugars" or "High in salt", taking up at least 20% of the ad. Packaging for unhealthy products could no longer use characters, mascots or designs attractive to children.
  4. Digital advertising aimed at minors would need access controls, and pop-up and personalized ads for unhealthy products would be banned. Public administrations would promote advertising for fresh, organic and local foods and train teachers in healthy eating.
  5. Violations would be classified as minor, serious or very serious, with fines of up to €600,000, which can rise to eight times the revenue obtained. In very serious cases, the establishment could be temporarily closed or its advertising activity suspended for up to five months.
  6. The law would take effect six months after publication in the Official State Gazette, although some technical requirements would have adaptation periods. It would repeal Article 46 of the Food Safety and Nutrition Law, which until now regulated this advertising.

Who it affects

  • Food and drink companies, distributors and importers that advertise products high in sugar, fat or salt.: They could not run advertising that might reach people under 18 and would have to include nutrition warnings.
  • Media outlets, digital platforms, advertising agencies and hospitality businesses.: They would have to prevent banned advertising from reaching minors and comply with the new restrictions.
  • Establishments selling energy drinks.: They could not supply them to anyone under 16, or under 18 if they exceed 32 mg of caffeine per 100 ml, and must request proof of age.
  • People under 18 and their families.: They would be better protected from advertising for unhealthy products and would get more nutrition information.

Words worth knowing

Perfiles nutricionales de la OMS (WHO nutrient profiles)
Technical limits set by the World Health Organization to decide whether a food or drink is considered healthy based on its sugar, fat, salt or calorie content.
HFSS
English acronym for products high in fat, salt and sugar.
Publicidad de marca (brand advertising)
An ad that does not sell a specific product but promotes the company's image or values.
Medidas cautelares (precautionary measures)
Urgent decisions, such as pulling an ad or a product off the market, to prevent harm while the case is being resolved.
Prescripción (statute of limitations)
The maximum period to penalize a violation or enforce a penalty; once it passes, no action can be taken.

It summarizes the text as it was introduced. It is written by artificial intelligence and may contain mistakes: the official text is what counts. Read the official text · How we make summaries

Where it stands

How far did it get?

It took 2 of 7 steps. It reached Admitted, and today it is rejected.

  1. Introduced17 April 2026Someone registers the text in the Congreso.
  2. Admitted21 April 2026The Bureau of the Congreso accepts it and, for a members’ bill, the plenary decides whether to consider it.
  3. Amendmentsnot reachedGroups propose changes.
  4. Committeenot reachedA committee goes through the text in detail.
  5. Plenarynot reachedAll 350 deputies vote.
  6. Senatenot reachedThe Senate can pass it, amend it or veto it.
  7. BOEnot reachedIt is published in the Official State Gazette (BOE) and comes into force.
See the 6 official steps on a timeline
Apr 2026Apr 2026May 2026May 2026May 2026May 202611. 17 April 2026: Presentación22. 21 April 2026: Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales Publicación desde 21/04/2026 hasta 24/04/202633. 21 April 2026: Calificación44. 24 April 2026: Gobierno Contestación desde 24/04/2026 hasta 13/05/202655. 13 May 2026: Pleno Toma en consideración desde 13/05/2026 hasta 26/05/202666. 26 May 2026: Concluido - (Rechazado) desde 26/05/2026 hasta 01/06/2026

26 May 2026

How did the plenary vote?

More votes against 166 yes · 178 no · 5 abst.

Voted on: Private member's bill by the Plurinational SUMAR Parliamentary Group, for the promotion of the consumption of healthy foods and beverages.

Source: Congreso de los Diputados, vote 1 of sitting 181· updated 10 Nov

Each dot is a seat. Tap one, or use the arrow keys, to see who it is.

Your province

How did the deputies from your province vote?

And your senators: the Senate does not link its votes to this law in its open data, so we cannot put them side by side here.

Or see how most of each province voted
More details: how each group and each province voted

The groups

Who voted in favour and who against?

In favour, most of Euskal Herria Bildu, Plurinacional SUMAR, Republicano, Socialista and Mixto. Against, most of Junts per Catalunya, Popular en el Congreso and VOX. 1 deputy voted differently from their group.

By province: in 10 most voted in favour; in 31, against.

Coloured by how most of each province’s deputies voted.

  • In favour: 10
  • Against: 31
  • Tie: 11
Result by parliamentary group
GroupSeatsHow it voted
Euskal Herria Bildu6
6 in favour
Plurinacional SUMAR26
26 in favour
Republicano7
7 in favour
Socialista121
120 in favour · 1 did not vote
Vasco (EAJ-PNV)5
5 abst.
Junts per Catalunya7
7 against
Mixto8
7 in favour · 1 against
Popular en el Congreso137
137 against
VOX33
33 against

What happens next

What happens now?

It goes no further. A similar one could be introduced later.

Sources

Where does all this come from?

  • The data comes from the open files of the Congreso, the Senate and the BOE, unaltered.
  • Each deputy’s province is the one of their seat on the day of the vote.
  • We only say “passed” or “rejected” when the majority needed is certain; otherwise we say which side had more votes.