The CJEU has backed Italy’s power to require platforms to compensate publishers for the use of news snippets, strengthening Article 15 of the EU Copyright Directive and adding weight to a wider European dispute over the value of journalism in the platform economy.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that EU member states may require online platforms to compensate press publishers when they use extracts of their articles, in a judgment that strengthens the position of media companies in negotiations with large technology platforms.
The ruling in Meta Platforms Ireland v AGCOM concerned Italy’s implementation of the EU’s press publishers’ right, introduced under Article 15 of the 2019 Copyright Directive. Meta had challenged rules allowing Italy’s communications regulator, AGCOM, to intervene in disputes over payment for the online use of press content.
The CJEU found that a right to fair compensation for publishers is compatible with EU law, provided the remuneration is linked to authorisation for the online use of press publications. The case will now return to the Italian courts, but the judgment gives national regulators clearer legal ground to oversee negotiations between publishers and online platforms.
The dispute reflects a wider problem in the digital news market. Publishers fund reporting, editing, verification, photography, video, legal review and distribution. Platforms, search engines and social media services can then display headlines, thumbnails, summaries or short extracts that help retain users, generate engagement and support advertising or data-driven business models. The central question has been how the value of that use should be measured, and whether publishers have enough bargaining power to negotiate payment.
Article 15 of the EU Copyright Directive was intended to address that imbalance by giving press publishers rights over the online use of their publications by information society service providers. It does not apply to ordinary hyperlinking, individual words or very short extracts, but it does apply where online use goes beyond those limited exclusions.
In practice, implementation has been uneven. Some member states have adopted stronger enforcement systems than others. Italy’s model gave AGCOM powers to set remuneration criteria, require information from platforms and intervene where negotiations fail. Meta argued that such powers went beyond what EU law allowed. The CJEU has now rejected the central objection.
For publishers, the most significant part of the ruling is not only the confirmation of payment, but the recognition that negotiations require access to data. Platforms hold information on impressions, referrals, engagement, advertising context and indirect commercial value. Without that information, publishers argue that they are asked to negotiate while the other side controls the evidence needed to calculate the value of the content.
This issue has already been visible in France. In 2024, the French Competition Authority fined Google €250 million for failing to comply with commitments linked to related rights for press publishers and agencies. The authority said Google had not provided all the information needed for negotiations and had kept publishers in a position of “information asymmetry”. The French deision became one of the clearest examples of the difficulties involved in enforcing the publishers’ right against a dominant platform.
The CJEU ruling also addresses another concern: retaliation. Publishers have long argued that platforms could reduce visibility, remove previews or change ranking during negotiations, thereby weakening a publisher’s commercial position. The Italian framework included safeguards intended to prevent such pressure. The Court’s judgment confirms that member states may provide regulatory protection where it supports effective licensing negotiations.
The European Publishers Council welcomed the decision, describing it as a major development for the financial sustainability of journalism. Christian Van Thillo, chairman of the EPC, said the ruling recognised that publishers cannot negotiate on equal terms with dominant platforms without transparency, access to relevant data and safeguards against coercive conduct. Angela Mills Wade, the EPC’s executive director, said the judgment would support fairer negotiations with gatekeepers and reinforce the link between journalism, media freedom and pluralism.
The ruling also comes as artificial intelligence adds another layer to the dispute. AI search summaries, automated answer systems and platform-generated previews can rely on journalistic content while reducing the need for users to click through to publishers’ websites. The CJEU judgment does not resolve all questions around AI training or AI-generated summaries, but it strengthens the legal principle that commercial use of press content can require transparent authorisation and compensation.
The debate is not confined to Europe. Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code sought to address similar bargaining-power issues between media companies and digital platforms. During that process, Facebook temporarily restricted news content in Australia, illustrating how platform control over visibility can affect publishers and public access to information.
The ruling does not mean that every online reference to a news article requires payment. It preserves the Article 15 limits for links, individual words and very short extracts. Nor does it remove the need for commercial negotiation. Its importance lies in confirming that member states may give regulators the tools to make those negotiations effective.
For European publishers, the judgment offers a stronger basis for demanding data, resisting pressure and seeking payment where platforms use protected news content. For technology companies, it signals that national systems enforcing the press publishers’ right may survive legal challenge where they remain tied to authorisation, fair remuneration and regulatory oversight.
