CJEU backs publisher remuneration rules for online press use
Online platforms must treat publisher-use negotiations as a regulated workflow
Change
The CJEU held that EU law allows Member States to require online service providers to negotiate and disclose information for fair remuneration when using press publishers’ publications online, subject to limits on authorisation choice and contractual freedom.
Why it matters
The judgment supports national press-publisher remuneration regimes under Article 15 of the Copyright Directive. Platforms using press publications may face good-faith negotiation, information-disclosure and regulator-supervised compensation processes. The limits are important: publishers must retain authorisation choice, payment must relate to actual or intended use, and authorities cannot bind the parties’ contractual freedom beyond EU-law boundaries.
Implications
- — Online platforms using press-publication snippets or content in Member States with Article 15 remuneration regimes must prepare negotiation and disclosure workflows — the CJEU confirms those national obligations can be compatible with EU law.
- — Press publishers negotiating with online service providers must preserve authorisation decisions and evidence of actual or intended use — fair remuneration cannot be detached from the use of their publications.
- — Legal and policy teams at information society service providers must reassess challenges to national publisher-compensation regimes — regulator oversight, good-faith negotiation duties and data-disclosure requirements are not automatically barred by Article 15 or the Charter.
Who is affected
- — Online platforms and information society service providers using press publications
- — Press publishers negotiating online-use remuneration
- — Legal and policy teams handling EU copyright and platform-regulation disputes
- — National media or communications regulators supervising publisher compensation
What to watch
- — 12 May 2026: CJEU judgment issued in Case C-797/23, Meta Platforms Ireland v AGCOM.