The transparency principle of the General Data Protection Regulation requires data-processing information to be clear, precise, and accessible. While Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise in this context, their probabilistic nature raises challenges for ensuring truthfulness and comprehensibility. This paper presents an exploratory evaluation of eight Privacy Question Answering (QA) systems – including LLMs, retrieval-augmented generation, and alignment-based approaches – on two datasets. We propose an evaluation framework that maps both traditional NLP and LLM-as-a-judge metrics to the legal requirements of comprehensibility and precision. Results show that no single system consistently excels across all metrics, and that system rankings can vary depending on the choice of metric and thresholding. We highlight open questions and emphasize the need to translate legal requirements into technical evaluation criteria. Our work provides a foundation for a more robust evaluation of Privacy QA systems.