PINF Campaign and Comms Manager, Beckie Shuker, breaks down the latest developments in Australia's fight to hold big tech accountable for local news.
Yesterday, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) took its first steps towards enforcing the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCCA), imposing a Publisher Conduct Requirement that will require Google to comply with new rules in relation to publishers’ content.
Google must give publishers meaningful ways to opt out of having their content used to power its AI overviews and new AI mode. Google must also take steps to ensure content is credited accurately in general search results so that users can easily navigate back to the news websites where content originates.
PINF responded to these propositions back when they were published in February – essentially, it’s a good start, but doesn’t go far enough to rebalance the relationship between a monopolistic, unaccountable actor and an emerging local news sector that has seen its traditional business model entirely collapsed.
When PINF and our partners were lobbying the Government to bring this legislation about, we drew clear lessons from negotiations across the world to ensure that the UK's bargaining codes would be world leading.
One of the first countries to attempt this regulatory action was Australia, and there have been some major developments from the antipodes over the last few months that are worth continuing to learn from.
Australia's News Bargaining Incentive
Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code was introduced in 2021. Though hard-won, the code had limitations in that it excluded publishers with turnover below AUS$150k (c.£80k) and was non-binding on platforms. In the 12 months following its introduction, a decrease in journalistic activity was seen in the country.
Building on the 2021 News Media Bargaining Code, Australia’s newly proposed News Bargaining Incentive (NBI) is designed to addresses the key weakness in the regulatory framework that allowed platforms to sidestep negotiations by removing news from their services.
The NBI proposes a 2.25% charge on digital platforms with annual Australian revenue exceeding $250 million. That threshold certainly captures tech giants Google, Meta, TikTok and Apple News, with LinkedIn potentially included too. Any charges paid to the government would be distributed back to the news media sector.
Platforms can avoid the levy by negotiating deals with news publishers. Experts estimate that if Meta were to pay the charge to the government, it would total around $112 million. If it chose to make deals with news outlets directly, Meta could settle at $75 million in publisher payments, as for every dollar paid to publishers, a platform can claim $1.50 as a tax deduction and offset their liability. As an added bonus, those commercial deals are tax deductible.
Crucially, the funding that platforms negotiate with publishers will be capped, preventing platforms from fulfilling obligations through a single large deal and ensuring that money flows across a wider range of publishers.
Industry bodies LINA and CBAA have welcomed the much-needed further intervention but raised concerns that commercially focused eligibility criteria could still exclude local and community news outlets, those who are most in need of support.
The Australian Public Interest Journalism Initiative said that “the intent to correct a power imbalance in the information ecosystem through requiring tech platforms to contribute to the news media industry they have disrupted is commendable”
Our own not-so-new legislation (the DMCCA was enacted in May 2024) absolutely has the power to achieve this aim and level the playing field between big tech and public interest journalism – but it must be enforced to its full effect and without delay.
The CMA should not delay in enforcing our own bargaining code to its fullest and a prominence regime should be introduced to ensure that professional, trusted local news cuts through mis- and disinformation online.
Written by
