On 12 May 2026, in Case C-797/23, Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (“AGCOM”), the Court of Justice of the European Union (“the Court”) delivered a preliminary ruling on interpretation in proceedings between Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd (“Meta”) and AGCOM, the Italian communications regulatory authority, concerning the lawfulness of a decision adopted by AGCOM, defining the criteria to be used to determine fair compensation for the online use of press publications.
The case is the Court’s first major ruling on the scope and implementation of the exclusive rights of press publishers under Directive (EU) 2019/790 of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (“the Directive”).
Background to the dispute
The case arose in the context of section 15 of the Directive, which demands Member States implementing it to grant press publishers exclusive rights to authorise or prohibit the online reproduction and publication of their press publications by information society service providers (“ISSP”), such as Meta. Italy implemented section 15 through national legislation providing, besides exclusive rights, also a right to fair compensation for press publishers. In this framework, the Italian transposing legislation empowered AGCOM to define benchmark criteria for determining such compensation, to intervene where the parties failed to agree as well as to supervise compliance with information obligations imposed on online ISSP.
Meta challenged the Italian regulator’s decision laying down the criteria for determining fair compensation, arguing, in essence, that section 15 acknowledges press publishers’ exclusive rights, not an additional remuneration right. Hence, the Italian transposing legislation would create a mechanism disadvantageous and unduly interfering with several of Meta’s fundamental rights. On this basis, the referring Italian court sought the interpretation of the Court on section 15 of the Directive, together with section 16 (freedom to conduct a business) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR).
The issues at stake
The case raises questions about the relationship between press publishers' related rights over their digital content and the freedoms of large ISSP, most notably operators of social networks and search engines, to conduct their business. The entry into force of the Directive itself was controversial and sparked large digital protests not only among ISSP, but by certain Member States (some of which even sought the annulment of certain provisions of the Directive). Central to the dispute was the issue of the structural imbalance between press publishers and large platform operators, particularly the information asymmetry. Only platforms actually have access to the data needed to assess the economic value of the use of press content, leaving publishers in a certain vacuum where they are unable to have a complete view over the economic characteristics of contracts. Furthermore, ISSP often enjoy a contractual power substantially higher than that of their counterparts, among which press publishers. These aspects were clear to the Italian lawmakers when the transposition legislation was adopted. Significantly, instead of affording the responsibilities of the mechanism upon government structures, AGCOM was deemed to be the best broker for its independence between ISSP and press publishers.
The findings of the Court
The Court first recalled that the rights under section 15 of the Directive are of a preventive nature, in that any use of the publications which they protect requires the prior consent of rightsholders. Publishers of press publications may make their consent subject to any remuneration which they deem appropriate or, conversely, should retain the possibility of authorising those uses for free, including through non-exclusive free licences. In this framework, the Court held that section 15 does not prevent Member States from establishing a system intended to ensure fair remuneration, provided that such remuneration is linked to the authorisation granted by the publisher.
The Court generally accepted that, as provided under the transposing legislation, ISSP are required to, inter alia, enter into negotiations with press publishers, during which they need to refrain from reducing the visibility of the relevant contents. As ISSP are often the only parties holding the information needed to assess the economic value of the online use of press publications, such obligations essentially are aimed at correcting the imbalances between press publishers and online platforms. In this framework, granting AGCOM regulatory powers, such as setting benchmark criteria, assisting the parties in fixing the remuneration, monitoring compliance and imposing penalties, may also fall within the Member States’ discretion to define the detailed rules for implementing section 15.
At the same time, the Court did not refrain from acknowledging that the obligations imposed on providers may limit the freedom to conduct a business protected by section 16 of the Chart. However, it considered that such limitations may be justified under section 52 thereof, since they pursue objectives recognised by EU law: ensuring a well-functioning and fair marketplace for copyright, such as enabling publishers to recoup their investments, protecting intellectual property and safeguarding freedom and pluralism of the media.
The way forward
The judgment confirms that the EU copyright framework does not merely recognise formal rights in favour of press publishers: those rights must also be capable of effective exercise in an economic environment marked by strong asymmetries between publishers and large digital platforms. It also should be read as part of the wider EU effort to contain the capacity of very large online platforms to impose unilateral economic conditions on more vulnerable market participants.
Its significance lies in the Court’s acceptance that regulatory intervention may be needed to restore balance where contractual freedom alone would not guarantee the effective protection of EU rights, especially where Big Techs are involved, displaying their informational and contractual leverage. This is particularly relevant in the press and publishing sector, where the economic sustainability of journalism is closely connected to democratic pluralism. The Court’s reasoning may therefore resonate beyond press publishers alone, including in future disputes concerning the use of protected content by digital platforms and, potentially, by artificial intelligence systems.
Share on
