The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that online platforms must compensate publishers for the use of press content, confirming that EU member states can require ?fair remuneration? systems and regulate how negotiations between tech companies and media organizations are conducted.
The decision came in a dispute involving Meta and Italy's communications regulator, AGCOM, over Italy's implementation of EU copyright rules. The court upheld the Italian framework, which allows regulators to oversee negotiations, request data from platforms, and impose penalties if companies fail to comply. It also confirms that platforms can be required to pay for news content they use, while publishers retain the right to refuse permission or offer content free of charge.
The ruling is rooted in the EU Copyright Directive adopted in 2019, which established a neighboring right for press publishers and journalists, enabling them to receive compensation when their content is used by digital platforms. The court stated that EU law does not prevent member states from setting up systems designed to ensure such payments, including mechanisms for supervision and enforcement at national level.
In its judgment, the court rejected Meta's argument that such rules distort competition or go beyond what EU law allows. It concluded that the Italian system is intended to correct an imbalance in bargaining power between platforms and publishers, particularly given that only platforms possess detailed data on traffic and advertising revenue linked to news content.
The judgment also highlighted restrictions on platform behavior during negotiations. It confirmed that limiting the visibility of news content while talks are ongoing can be considered an unfair pressure tactic, reinforcing obligations on platforms to act transparently and in good faith when dealing with publishers.
At the heart of the ruling is the principle that press publishers have the right to monetize their content and recover production costs. As stated in the judgment, ?Article 15 of Directive 2019/790 is intended to ensure that those publishers may recoup the investments required by the production of those publications.? The court further clarified that platforms cannot rely on EU law to avoid national systems that enforce fair payment mechanisms.
Media organizations and journalist groups welcomed the decision. The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) said the ruling strengthens the legal foundation for national laws requiring compensation and reinforces transparency in negotiations. EFJ officials also stressed that journalists themselves should benefit directly from any remuneration linked to the use of their work, not only publishers.
Charlotte Michils of the Flemish Association of Journalists said the ruling confirms stronger enforcement rights for member states and highlights the need for fair distribution of revenues. She warned against practices that reduce the visibility of news during negotiations, saying such actions undermine both journalism and fair market conditions.
EFJ President Maja Sever also supported the judgment, stating that ?journalistic work cannot simply be stolen, reused and monetized by large technology companies without authorization, transparency and fair remuneration.? She added that the principle must also apply to emerging digital technologies, including artificial intelligence systems that rely on journalistic content.
Industry representatives argue the decision is particularly relevant as AI platforms increasingly aggregate or repurpose news content. The ruling is seen as reinforcing the idea that commercial use of journalism, whether by social media platforms or AI systems, requires authorization and compensation.
The court also dismissed claims that Italy's approach restricts competition, noting instead that it helps balance a structural inequality. Publishers, it said, often lack access to key financial and usage data controlled by platforms, which places them at a disadvantage during negotiations over licensing terms.
Angela Mills Wade of the European Publishers Council described the decision as a clear message that journalism has measurable economic value. The court itself emphasized that transparency requirements and restrictions on visibility manipulation are intended to ensure that negotiations reflect the real value of news content rather than pressure tactics by dominant platforms.
