The text wants to “force” the platforms to pay the press and give Arcom the role of arbitrator accompanied by sanctions.
The bill on the effectiveness of neighboring rights, tabled by MoDem deputy Erwan Balanant, was unanimously adopted by the National Assembly at the end of March and will be examined in the Senate this Tuesday afternoon. Seven years after the transposition in France of the European directive establishing a neighboring right for the press, the text aims to make up for the shortcomings of this compulsory remuneration and to force the digital giants to pay financial compensation to agencies and press publishers when they reuse their content.
A system refocused on data transmission and Arcom arbitration
The text requires platforms to transmit data concerning the use of press publications by their users, as well as all the elements of information necessary for a transparent evaluation of remuneration under related rights. It plans to grant thirty days to the platforms to provide these essential elements for calculating the amount due. In the event of refusal to comply with this obligation to transmit information, the Audiovisual and Digital Communication Regulatory Authority (Arcom) may be contacted and put on notice and, in the event of persistence, it may impose a financial sanction, up to 1% of its annual worldwide turnover.
The negotiation timetable is regulated: in the event of failure of the negotiations within three months from the date of the negotiation request, one of them may refer the matter to Arcom; the authority will then be required to arbitrate and set, within two months, the amount to be paid. This general framework intends to constrain the platforms, grant thirty days for the transmission of calculation elements, trigger the intervention of Arcom after three months of unsuccessful negotiations, with arbitration within two months, and a potential sanction within the limit of 1% of global annual turnover in the event of withholding information.
A fragmented market and ongoing litigation
Currently, only three digital players remunerate the French ecosystem: Google, which renewed its framework agreement with Alliance publishers in 2025; Qwant, which signed a similar agreement in January 2026; and Microsoft, which, without concluding a global agreement, agreed to pay certain publishers.
The agreement concluded in 2021 with Meta, which expired at the end of 2024, has not been renewed; the publishers contacted the Competition Authority following negotiations which failed over the amount. As for LinkedIn and X, discussions have never started, these players having always refused to transmit data linked to the use of press content on their services. The publishers took them to court for non-compliance with the law. Only a handful of platforms have, to date, signed agreements with publishers and several legal disputes are underway.
The text was adopted unanimously and is supported by the government; it is also done in unison by press editors. Marc Feuillée, president of the General Information Press Alliance (Apig) and general manager of the Figaro group, declares: “We fully support this proposed law and we have no doubt about the fact that it has a consensus: it is essential, and we are extremely eager for it to be applied (…). We can no longer afford to wait.”
In the same logic, Marc Feuillée adds: “The choice of Arcom as arbitrator seems relevant to us: it is the institution which knows the media best, and which will tomorrow be in charge of regulating the entire ecosystem (…). The tactics of the platforms are always the same: to save time, to circumvent the spirit of the law, whether on neighboring rights or on AI. We need mechanisms that constrain them.” Pierre Petillault, general director of Apig, is delighted that these contributions clarify and reinforce the scope of the initial text.
The signal from the CJEU and the contributions of the Senate
On May 12, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) validated the right of the Italian State and its Communications Supervisory Authority (Agcom) to impose “fair remuneration” on Meta for the benefit of press publishers; the CJEU ruled that Italian law applies to all online services, without exception for social networks, and that Agcom can impose the opening of negotiations and the provision of the necessary information. “This decision further secures our proposed law,” indicates Michel Laugier (Senator from Yvelines, centrist Union group, rapporteur of the text in the Senate).
The rapporteur tabled an amendment authorizing Arcom to collect data on the use of press content by platforms. He also proposed that the possible appeal by the web giants against the amount of remuneration set by Arcom be brought before the Paris Court of Appeal, without suspensive effect: “This is about speeding up the procedures and ensuring that the platforms cannot use the weapon of appeal to delay the payment of related rights.” This amendment was adopted in committee, as well as another introducing a presumption of applicability of related rights for all publications and online press services registered with the joint committee on publications and press agencies.
Positions and reserves on the platform side
According to information reported about it, Google would be in favor of the Balanant bill, because it clarifies the legislative framework and would force other tech giants to comply with it; but he is keen to preserve “business secrets” and is concerned about the confidentiality of the data collected by Arcom. He also fears that the ban set by the text on “limiting the visibility” of publishers’ content during negotiations will paralyze the technical improvement of its products and impact the user experience; the firm would like to be able to make general algorithmic modifications, including during negotiation periods.
In total, the proposed law intends to constrain the platforms by setting transparency obligations and a tight timetable, while Arcom would be given the power of arbitration and sanction, within the limit of 1% of global annual turnover, in the event of withholding information. The Senate examination must clarify these mechanisms in a context where only a handful of platforms currently pay the press and where several legal disputes are underway.
