SMS vote in Greece: what to check before you enter
An SMS vote in Greece is decided by the terms of the contest that runs it, and three published points show how those terms work. The EBU, which runs the Eurovision Song Contest, lowered the votes allowed per payment method, SMS included. Its voting system gives each vote a unique identifier, whichever channel it came by. The Hellenic Data Protection Authority requires prior consent for SMS marketing, which is a separate question from a vote. None of the three is a Greek rule that treats an SMS vote as a vote, so the sections below separate what is stated from what is left open and set out what an entrant should check before sending a text.
Rechecked on 22 October 2026.
An SMS vote is one channel among several the count must handle
A rule that names SMS votes directly comes from outside Greece, from the organiser of the Eurovision Song Contest. The EBU's 2026 cap applied to online, SMS and phone call as separate payment methods, and each method had its own maximum. A cap per method means SMS has a limit of its own.
CNN Greece reported that the Eurovision voting system gives every vote a unique identifier, whichever channel it came by. That is a record kept by the organiser, and it is the detail a reader should look for in any contest's rules. A count that can tell channels apart can apply a channel cap. A contest that does not say whether it records the channel leaves its cap unexplained.
Organisers need the channel record for two reasons a reader can see in the rule itself. A cap per method works only when each method is recorded, and a dispute is easier to settle from a log than from memory. An entrant who sends a text should expect the organiser to be able to say which channel a counted vote came from.
- An SMS vote is a vote sent by text message into a contest's count.
- A rule that names SMS votes directly comes from outside Greece.
- A cap per method gives each channel a limit of its own.
- A unique identifier lets a count tell channels apart.
- Ask whether the count records the channel of each vote.
The Greek regulator's SMS rule names marketing, not votes
The Hellenic Data Protection Authority sets the consent rule for direct marketing by SMS. Its opt-in requirement covers messages sent to a person for marketing, with an exception for existing customer relationships. The consent point is separate from the vote, but a contest that texts its entrants with promotions has to meet it.
No Greek rule that governs an SMS vote as a vote is named here, so the contest's own rules are the first thing to read. Where those rules are silent, the regulator's marketing consent rule does not fill the gap, because it addresses messages, not votes.
Check what consent a contest took before it texts anyone. A contest's rules should say how the entrant agreed to receive messages, and whether that agreement is separate from the entry itself. A reader who cannot find that statement has a question to put to the organiser, and the question is about consent, not about the count.
- The Hellenic Data Protection Authority sets a consent rule for SMS marketing.
- Prior opt-in consent applies to direct marketing by text message.
- An existing customer relationship is one exception to that consent rule.
- The consent rule addresses messages, not the vote itself.
- Ask how entrants agreed to receive texts, and keep that apart from the entry.
A channel cap sets a limit per method, and the rules say which
The EBU's Eurovision cap of 2026 was set per payment method, so online, SMS and phone call each carried a separate maximum. The reduction from 20 to 10 applied to each method, which is a different thing from a single total for the whole contest. A reader should check whether any contest's cap works the same way, because a per-method limit and a total limit produce different counts.
An entrant reading a cap should ask three things: what the limit is, which methods it covers, and whether the count reports the method beside each vote. A cap that names no method leaves the question open. A cap that names its methods and reports them gives the organiser's count something a reader can check.
A channel cap also tells a reader something about the organiser's record. A cap set per method implies a count kept by method, and a reader can ask whether that record exists. If it does, the organiser can say how many votes came by SMS. If it does not, the cap is a promise with no way to test it.
- A cap per method sets a separate limit for each channel.
- The Eurovision cap of 2026 fell from 20 votes per method to 10.
- A per-method limit and a total limit produce different counts.
- Ask whether the count reports the method beside each vote.
- A cap that names no method leaves the question open.
Three mistakes to avoid when reading an SMS vote rule
The first mistake is taking the Eurovision cap as a Greek cap. The EBU sets the terms for its own contest, and a figure from that contest does not carry over to a Greek contest unless the Greek contest's terms adopt it. A reader who copies the number into a Greek entry has read the wrong rulebook.
The second mistake is reading the regulator's consent rule as a rule on voting. That rule concerns direct marketing messages, so it does not settle how a vote sent by text is treated, and the contest's own terms have to say so.
The third mistake is treating a cap as proof that the count was checked. A cap limits what one method can add. It says nothing about whether anyone reviewed the count, and a reader who wants that has to ask who checked it, what they checked and when.
- A Eurovision figure is not a Greek figure.
- A consent rule for marketing does not govern a vote.
- A cap limits a method; it does not prove a check.
- Ask who checked the count, and what they checked.
- Read the contest's own terms before quoting a number from elsewhere.
Scams, fake contests and disqualification are separate questions
A contest can look fake without any SMS rule being broken, and a contest with a clear SMS rule can still be run badly. This guide cannot judge whether a named Greek contest is genuine, and it has no basis for rating an organiser.
Disqualification follows the rule a contest published, not a reader's suspicion. A contest that states its method cap and its count check has set the test in advance. An entrant who exceeds a published cap learns the result from the organiser's decision, and the terms should say who decides and how a dispute is raised.
Mobile operator terms form a separate layer from contest rules. A contest's rules and a phone operator's terms are different documents, and the examples on this page name contest rules only. Neither stands in for the other, so an entrant who reads only the operator's terms has not read the contest's rules.
- A stated SMS rule is the organiser's promise about the count.
- Disqualification follows a published rule, not a suspicion.
- Operator terms and contest rules are separate documents.
- A fake-looking contest and a broken rule are different problems.
- Read the contest's rules before reading the operator's terms.
Rules that apply
In Greece an SMS vote is governed first by the terms of the contest that runs it. The Eurovision cap on SMS, which belongs to the EBU and not to any Greek body, limits each payment method and marks each vote with an identifier that shows its channel. The Hellenic Data Protection Authority sets the consent rule for SMS marketing, which requires prior opt-in consent with an exception for existing customers. Neither is a Greek rule that treats an SMS vote as a vote, so a contest that uses SMS should write its own method cap, its own count check and its own dispute route.
What we decline
This page does not rule on any named Greek contest, organiser or mobile operator, and it cannot say whether a given SMS vote in Greece will be counted. It names no fee, cost or prize, and it gives no step for getting a count past a check. The sources were checked on 2026-10-22 and reviewed against the three points above; they name no Greek statute or regulator position on SMS votes as votes, and that gap stays open here. Operator terms are outside its scope.
Questions and answers
What is a SMS vote in Greece?
An SMS vote in Greece is a vote sent by text message into a contest's count. The rule that names SMS votes directly comes from the organiser of the Eurovision Song Contest, the EBU, whose contest caps each payment method at a set number of votes. Each vote in that system carries a unique identifier, so the count can tell channels apart. Greek contests are not covered by that cap, and their own terms decide what counts.
How do regulators in Greece treat a SMS vote?
No Greek rule that governs an SMS vote as a vote is named here, so the contest's own rules are the first thing to read. The Hellenic Data Protection Authority does set a rule for SMS, but it concerns direct marketing: prior opt-in consent is required, with an exception for existing customer relationships. That is a consent rule for marketing messages, and it does not settle how a vote sent by text is treated, which the contest's terms must state.
What must organisers in Greece state about a SMS vote?
No Greek statute named here obliges an organiser to publish an SMS-vote rule, so the rule is whatever the organiser writes. A contest that states one says what counts, which methods are capped, and what happens to a flagged vote. A statement that names none of these leaves the count open. The Eurovision terms show the pattern: a cap per method, stated as a number.
What should an entrant in Greece check about a SMS vote?
Check first whether there is a cap, its number, the methods it covers and whether SMS is among them. Then read what happens to a flagged vote and who decides a dispute. A contest whose count records the channel, as the Eurovision system does, can show what came in by SMS. Save the terms as they stood when the vote opened, because a later edit changes the rules you entered under.
Can you give an example of a SMS vote in Greece?
Yes. One example is the Eurovision cap of 2026, which counted online, SMS and phone call separately and fell from 20 votes per method to 10. A second example is the consent rule for SMS marketing, which requires prior opt-in consent from the person receiving the text. The two cases answer different questions: one is how a count is capped, the other is how a person was contacted.
What are common mistakes with a SMS vote in Greece?
The first mistake is taking the Eurovision cap as a Greek cap, because the EBU sets the terms of its own contest. The second is reading the regulator's consent rule as a rule on voting, when it concerns marketing messages. The third is treating a cap as proof that the count was checked. Each is settled by the contest's published terms and by a written question to the organiser before the vote opens.