The question of how policymakers can ensure that trustworthy news remains available to citizens is one of the most important and pressing of this generation.
As audiences increasingly get their news from digital platforms where misinformation proliferates, reliable news that meets recognised editorial standards is an essential antidote. Yet the news industry is under serious threat as longtime business models collapse. Many traditional revenue sources have been diverted to digital platforms that may host but do not produce news or are simply large advertising platforms. Australia has seen the disappearance of longstanding mastheads and the emergence of ‘news deserts’ in regional areas, a situation mirrored in other countries.
A threat to Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code scheme
In Australia, a centrepiece of national policy to support Australian news – a legislative scheme known as the ‘News Media Bargaining Code’ (NMBC)1 – came under threat in early 2024 when Meta, a key contributor, announced its withdrawal from the scheme.2
Introduced in 2021, the NMBC was an innovative model, with a stepped framework for eligible news organisations to voluntarily negotiate payments with certain large digital platforms which carry news. If needed, the federal treasurer can intervene by imposing mandatory requirements on platforms.
There was widespread concern that, if the treasurer chose to do this, Meta would remove news from its Australian platforms, taking it outside the scope of the NMBC scheme. The risk was real: in 2021, it had blocked news access for Australian Facebook users for several days while the NMBC was being debated, and since 2023 it has removed news from its Canadian platforms after the Canadian government implemented a similar news bargaining scheme.3
Since its inception, the NMBC has enabled significant funds to flow to some Australian news organisations, so the implications of Meta’s withdrawal were serious. During 2024 the Australian government consulted widely while formulating its response, as did the Australian parliament’s Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society.
Looking for alternative policy solutions
In this context, the Centre for Media Transition and the IIC Australia Chapter (IICA) jointly commissioned research to explore local and international precedents for two alternative interventions to support Australian news:
- a digital platforms levy; and
- a ‘must-carry’ provision to ensure an ongoing presence for news on digital platforms.
Both mechanisms were being talked about as possible solutions, but there were doubts about whether they might work in the Australian regulatory context.
What the research found
The Finding a Way forward for Australian News research project was initiated in late July 2024 and its report was published in November 2024.4 The work took place in a fast-changing environment: over the preceding year and during the research period many brand-new digital platforms interventions were implemented across different countries. Since publication, there have been at least seven further relevant policy developments or announcements in Australia alone (including a proposal for a levy-like news bargaining incentive) and this area remains dynamic globally, as policymakers and the courts work through existing and emerging issues.
The research found a rich field of precedents in many jurisdictions that could be used to address the problems of sustainability and visibility of news in Australia and elsewhere, providing direct examples or comparable design elements which could be applied to develop levy and must-carry provisions.
It is clear that no single intervention provides a complete solution to these problems. Financial interventions can build capacity for news organisations to keep producing news, but that alone is not enough. Reliable news needs to be present and visible on the platforms that audiences go to for information. Trustworthy news also needs to be protected from deprioritisation, which means that any solution needs to address algorithms.
Key findings on the two research areas are summarised in the following sections.
Is a news levy on digital platforms viable?
Industry levies are surprisingly common in Australia, though it does not currently have industry-specific levies on digital platforms. However, useful local comparators are found in and around media, communications and cultural sectors.
Trustworthy news also needs to be protected from deprioritisation, which means that any solution needs to address algorithms
Australia’s longtime telecommunications industry levy requires certain telecommunications carriers to financially support a universal service obligation (and is similar to a US scheme, a point that becomes significant when considering potential trade objections).5 Though not in the nature of levies, there are direct investment requirements on certain subscription television licensees under Australia’s Broadcasting Services Act 19926 to support the production of Australian content. Further, a two-tiered streaming service reporting and investment scheme, requiring the investment of a minimum percentage of gross Australian revenues in local content, has been proposed though not yet enacted.
Globally, there are numerous examples of governments taxing elements of the digital economy, with some specifically directed at supporting news.
In Canada, regulations made by the regulator CRTC7 under the Online Streaming Act 2023 provide for the collection of levies from certain online streaming services, with specified amounts applied to fund local news and cultural content.8 (These regulations have been contested by streaming services in cases that are currently still before the Canadian courts and the Federal Court of Appeal has suspended the payments pending the outcome.) The regulations sit alongside news bargaining legislation introduced in June 2023 under the Online News Act 2023. While Meta removed news from its platforms in response, Google has, in contrast, established an annual CAD$100m news fund, to be distributed by a new special purpose organisation, the Canadian Journalism Collective, as a condition of a 5-year regulatory exemption from the scheme.
The idea of levies on large digital platforms to preserve journalism is also found in bills introduced by the California and Illinois legislatures in 2023 and 2024. California’s Journalism Preservation Act 2024,9 which levied certain large platforms which access, aggregate or distribute news to compensate digital journalism providers, was withdrawn after the government reached a US$110m deal with Google in August 2024 that involves payments to news providers; another California bill with similar intent now seems unlikely to proceed. At the time of the research report, it was suggested Illinois might look to secure a similar deal with Google; in January 2025, the bill was marked as indefinitely adjourned, though some reports suggest it may be reintroduced. In Maryland, a digital advertising tax used to invest in schools withstood a 2024 Federal Court challenge. Of interest (though not levies as such), a number of US states have also enacted tax credits for local news organisations.
More broadly based digital services taxes (DSTs) as well as online advertising taxes are increasingly common across the world, though some countries have indicated they will repeal their DSTs if the OECD achieves a multilateral agreement, a scenario which seems less likely after the recent US election. One of the difficulties of designing digital platforms levies or taxes is that the larger platforms targeted are generally US-based companies, so they are often contested on trade discrimination grounds. Across Europe, levies on streaming services that support local cultural content are common, with at least 17 countries imposing them. The European Union has a cultural exemption in their trade agreements which makes these levies more difficult to challenge, but not all countries which have them are in the EU.
A 2025 US Presidential Memorandum on digital taxes proposes investigation of and retaliation for digital levies, mirroring the approach taken by the same President’s previous administration.10 At time of writing, some countries were considering retaliatory actions to broader tariff issues, so it remains to be seen how this will affect new proposals for digital levies.
So, trade obligations are an essential matter to be considered by countries which wish to impose digital platforms levies to fund local news organisations.
Can a ‘must-carry’ news provision work in the digital environment?
While broad notions of freedom of speech have always made it very sensitive for governments or regulators to require platforms to publish specific things, laws or regulations that require entities to host certain content or services are surprisingly common in many countries.
The UK, US, Canada and various European, Asian and African countries have longstanding requirements for cable channels to carry free-to-air or other public interest services. Universal service obligations in countries like the US and Australia compel telecommunications carriers to offer certain services to consumers which might not be economically viable, funded in both countries by an industry levy. Australia has had local content quotas for licensed broadcasters for decades.
More recently, Australia, the UK and other European countries have implemented forms of ‘prominence’ regulation to ensure public interest terrestrial broadcasting services remain visible to audiences. These provisions require, for example, that televisions prominently display local free-to-air channels and their broadcast video on demand services. Some jurisdictions extend this to radio services on voice activated devices. Colombia’s national development plan requires streaming video on demand providers to ensure that users in Colombia ‘have an easily accessible and clearly identified section’ for works of national origin.11
In the digital context, maintaining presence is not just about ‘must-carry’; the necessary protections may need to extend to ‘must-not-deprioritise’ or ‘must-not-remove’. Provisions in the UK and in other European countries (the latter in line with the 2018 European Audiovisual Media Services Directive) ensure the prominence of certain online services, some extending to imposing requirements on search engines, the home screens of user interfaces and particular on-demand media services. In Germany, for example, there are detailed provisions in the Interstate Media Treaty about non-discrimination, discoverability of specified services in user interfaces and algorithmic transparency requirements. These include obligations on ‘media intermediary’ services with ‘journalistic-editorial offers’ that aggregate and host content but don’t publish under their own editorial control, such as search engines and social media.12
Innovative provisions in other contexts could have the effect of ‘must-carry’ or ‘must-not-deprioritise’ for eligible news content. The UK’s Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA), which is primarily designed to protect UK users from harmful content, is a systems-based scheme for digital platforms that includes new duties around the hosting and treatment of news and journalistic content.13 Though yet to be fully implemented (as they require regulator consultation and drafting of new codes), these duties are intended to protect content of democratic importance, news publisher content and journalistic content. The OSA and the European Media Freedom Act 202414 both contain fast-track processes for eligible news providers to deal with digital platforms in relation to complaints regarding news content removal.
Further afield, an Indonesian presidential decree requires digital platforms to ensure ‘fair treatment’ of ‘Press Companies’.
Given the importance of algorithms in determining what audiences see, it is necessary to look to new forms of algorithmic regulation (usually in the form of systems requirements rather than direct obligations). The EU’s Digital Services Act 202215 includes risk assessment requirements for digital platforms which should have the effect of improving prominence of authoritative information and giving people more control over what algorithms serve to them, including news. They extend to obligations to take actions required by the European Commission during public security or public health crises.
There have also been attempts to directly address misinformation and disinformation through legislation. Following mis/disinformation-fuelled riots in the UK in August 2024, the prime minister pledged to review the scope of the OSA. In Australia, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 aimed at ‘serious harms’ on digital platforms provided for the regulator to make certain rules, require reporting and approve and register industry codes. It was withdrawn in late November after political opposition made it clear it could not pass through the Senate (Australia’s upper house).
In the meantime, Australia’s Digital Industry Group Inc. (DIGI) Voluntary Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation includes an objective to ‘provide safeguards against Harms that may arise from Disinformation and Misinformation’ and Code 5.9K commits signatories to prioritise ‘credible and trusted news sources that are subject to a published editorial code (noting that some Signatories may choose to remove or reduce the ranking of news content which violates their policies)’.16
If legislators are thinking about new ways to address news presence, these sorts of voluntary commitments might be considered a fair starting point.
Where to from here?
The largest and most influential digital platforms operate globally, so it would make sense to have globally consistent regulation for public interest news content. But the challenges seem insurmountable: many interventions are strongly contested by the platforms, and the OECD’s inability to achieve a global treaty on digital services taxes foreshadows how hard this is in practice.
Nevertheless, the existence of digital platforms regulations in different jurisdictions opens a door for countries such as Australia to adapt similar provisions to local conditions. It is fair to ask: if digital platforms already have to comply with a requirement somewhere else in the world, why not here?
The research found many viable precedents and elements to draw upon without having to come up with completely novel solutions:
- For financial sustainability, this could be a levy applied to platforms above a certain size and/or revenue threshold, and it could be modelled on existing telecommunications industry levies in Australia and the US, using existing news provider definitions. It would ideally include an objectively-based distribution mechanism and accountability measures to ensure the funds had the intended impact. It could arguably extend to digital platforms that don’t host news content but which have diverted revenue from news media, such as large digital advertising platforms.17
- For must-carry and to maintain a presence on platforms that host or enable search, sharing or recommendation of news, and ensure public interest news is not deprioritised, policymakers could look to duties around news and journalism in systems-based UK and EU legislation. Other elements might include dedicated fast-track complaints processes for news providers, notification of takedown of journalistic content and swift review, shifting existing voluntary requirements into co-regulation, and strengthened obligations and transparency around discoverability, recommender systems and algorithms.
Finally, the above measures would likely need to be part of a broader package. Though the research focused on two interventions, it noted that other financial measures and media literacy programmes could be part of the solution, which would also need to address the significant impact of generative AI on news.
The digital platforms landscape is complex and difficult, but the issues at stake go to the heart of democracy and social cohesion. With a nod to a past US President who committed to a moon landing within the decade, these issues need to be addressed ‘not because they are easy, but because they are hard’. And, in the current environment, not acting expeditiously carries serious consequences.
No-one disagrees that something needs to be done to save the news; the issue is what and how much, who should be responsible and who should pay. We don’t have the decade to do it this time, so the speed and timing of regulatory solutions will be everything.
The report: ‘Finding a Way forward for Australian News: An examination of local and regulatory interventions’, was commissioned by CMT and IIC Australia Chapter.
and then