Paris Court Ruling Against Meta Is a Victory for Publishers and a Warning to Big Tech & AI
“A free and independent press cannot survive on terms dictated by the companies profiting from its work.”
Center for Media and Digital Governance at Open Markets director Dr. Courtney Radsch today welcomed the Paris Court of Appeal’s dismissal of Meta's challenge to the French Competition Authority's interim measures on publishers’ rights:
“The Paris Court of Appeal’s decision to reject Meta’s appeal is an important victory for publishers and a clear warning to dominant technology platforms: They cannot dictate the terms of using journalism while keeping publishers in the dark about the value their work generates.
“Meta and other technology giants have built enormously profitable businesses on content they did not create, while using their market power to undermine publishers’ ability to negotiate fair compensation. The rise of generative AI threatens to make this worse, as companies increasingly extract the value of journalism without directing readers, revenue, or meaningful bargaining power back to its creators.
“This ruling reinforces a fundamental principle: Dominant platforms must not be allowed to unilaterally determine what journalism is worth or how it can be used. That principle must extend to AI systems that scrape news content, often without meaningful consent, transparency, or compensation.
“Regulators in the United States, Europe, and around the world should take note. Protecting journalism requires more than copyright enforcement. It requires confronting the market power that allows a handful of technology companies to control how news is distributed, monetized, and increasingly absorbed into AI products. A free and independent press cannot survive on terms dictated by the companies profiting from its work.”
***
For more, see:
CMDG Calls for Regulators to Halt Meta’s Abusive New Content Rule (October 2026). Dr. Courtney Radsch called on U.S., UK, and EU regulators to intervene against Meta's unilateral changes to publisher content terms, warning that dominant platforms must not be allowed to exploit their gatekeeper power to obtain AI rights without meaningful consent.
Same Gatekeepers, New Tollbooths: Mapping the AI Content Licensing Market (April 2026). In this landmark report, Radsch and Karina Montoya document how dominant technology companies are shaping AI licensing markets to their advantage and propose stronger transparency requirements, collective bargaining, and fair compensation mechanisms for publishers.
UK Publisher Protections a First in Holding Google Accountable in AI Content Grab (June 2026). Radsch welcomed UK competition regulators' proposed publisher protections, arguing that AI companies should not be permitted to extract value from journalism while weakening its economic foundations.
A Framework for Establishing Journalism’s Value in Artificial Intelligence Systems (2024). Radsch outlines how journalism creates economic value for AI systems and why policymakers must address market (power) imbalances, enforce intellectual property rights, and require transparency to ensure fair compensation.
The Case for Requiring Explicit Consent from Rights Holders for AI Training (January 2025). Writing in Tech Policy Press, Radsch argues that AI developers should obtain affirmative consent from rights holders rather than relying on outdated opt-out mechanisms to access copyrighted content.
AI and the Future of Independent Journalism: The Promise and Peril of Privately Controlled Data Markets for Media Content (May 2026). A joint white paper with the Washington Monthly Institute examining emerging markets for journalism content and the risks of placing their infrastructure under private corporate control.
###