Meta loses case regarding payment to Italian publishers at the EU's highest court.

      The Court of Justice has determined that Italy’s AGCOM can compel Meta to compensate publishers for news snippets, marking the first instance in which the EU’s highest court has directly addressed this issue. Meta's attempt to overturn an Italian regulatory requirement mandating payment to publishers for their news snippets was unsuccessful, as the Court of Justice of the European Union supported Italy’s telecoms authority AGCOM in Case C-797/23 on Tuesday.

      This ruling represents the first occasion the EU's top court has considered whether member states can require platforms to pay for publishers’ content, and it has ruled in favor of the publishers. The court stated, “The right of publishers of press publications to fair remuneration is permissible,” as long as this remuneration is seen as payment for the authorization granted to providers to reproduce or share those publications with the public. It also noted that publishers have the right to fully deny authorization or grant it without charge.

      The case originated in Italy, where AGCOM, in 2023, established a framework requiring information-service providers, including Meta and Google, to negotiate compensation with publishers for the online use of their journalism. This decree equipped AGCOM with the power to define how fair remuneration is calculated, step in if negotiations collapse, and mandate platforms to provide data concerning their use of publishers' content. Meta contested this implementation, arguing that the Italian framework conflicted with EU law.

      The Italian courts sought clarification from the CJEU, which has now affirmed that the model aligns with the bloc’s 2019 copyright directive. Importantly, the court backed AGCOM’s ability to require platforms to disclose the data necessary for calculating fair compensation. This lack of balance, where only platforms possess insight into the commercial value of each piece of content, has been a significant grievance for publishers during five years of negotiations throughout Europe. The ruling treats the obligation to provide information as essential to the negotiation process rather than an overreach.

      The European Publishers Council described the ruling as “crucial,” especially as AI-driven applications of journalistic content are increasing. The council and its members had supported Italy’s stance, and the ruling now strengthens the position of publishers across the bloc in negotiations with leading platforms.

      Meta announced it is reviewing the ruling and has consistently contended that mandating payment for links and snippets could undermine the open web. This stance has been prevalent in similar disputes in Europe and Canada, where Meta chose to remove news from Facebook and Instagram rather than incur costs. Whether Meta will adopt a similar approach in Italy remains to be seen.

      The ruling serves as a preliminary decision, sending the dispute back to the Italian courts to implement the CJEU's interpretation. This effectively means that AGCOM’s framework remains intact, significantly limiting Meta's ability to contest the underlying principles. The focus will now shift to procedural matters such as how remuneration is determined in negotiations, how conflicts are resolved, and the specifics of the data-sharing requirement.

      For Italy, this ruling validates a regulatory model that other member states have been closely monitoring. France implemented a different but related strategy in 2019, resulting in licensing agreements with Google for AFP and Le Monde; Spain pursued its own approach, and Germany has engaged in legal battles in its domestic courts. The Italian framework, centered around AGCOM, now holds an EU-court endorsement that others lack.

      The Court of Justice will not revisit this case. The procedural responsibility now returns to the Italian judges, and the next step will be the negotiations that AGCOM's decree was designed to facilitate.