Press Publishers’ Right: The French Competition Authority Orders Meta to Negotiate in Good Faith

In France, the press publishers’ right of Article 15 of the CDSM Directive was implemented in articles L.218‐1 et seq. of the intellectual property code (‘IPC’) (here for our presentation of these provisions).

In their fight to obtain remuneration for online uses of their publications, French publishers and news agencies have made a smart strategic move: they have brought a case against Meta (Facebook and Instagram) before the French Competition Authority, on the grounds of copyright law and competition law. The Competition Authority recently handed down interim orders to force Meta to negotiate in good faith and communicate relevant information to assess the amount of royalties to be paid (decisions of 8 July 2026 26-MC-01 and 26-MC-02).

In 2019, French press publishers’ unions and the news agency Agence France Presse (‘AFP’) filed a first successful request for an interim injunction before the Competition Authority against Google (Decision 20-MC-01 of 9 April 2020), with the Court of Appeal of Paris upholding the Authority’s order in its judgment of 8 October 2020, stating that Google's behaviour is likely to constitute an abuse of a dominant position insofar as it imposes unfair transactional conditions (see our post here). In the same case, the Competition Authority later fined Google €250 million (Decision 22-D-13 of 15 March 2024) for failing to comply with its commitments that were made binding by the Authority’s decision of 21 June 2022 (22-D-13).

AFP also carried out a successful interim procedure against X (Twitter) before the French judicial courts. In a judgment of 25 September 2025, the Court of Appeal of Paris (24/17260) ruled that X is under an obligation to pay the remuneration related to the press publishers’ neighbouring right, and ordered X to provide the information necessary to assess the amount of royalties that it will have to pay.

In the present case against Meta, APIG, a union representing around 300 press publishers, and the collecting society Droits Voisins de la Presse (‘DVP’) which defends the rights of press publishers and news agencies, have each brought a case before the French Competition Authority against Meta Platforms Inc. and Meta Platforms Ireland Limited (hereafter ‘Meta’). On 8 July 2026, the Competition Authority handed down two interim orders, one in the APIG/Meta case (decision 26-MC-01), and the other in the DVP/Meta case (decision 26-MC-02); the two decisions are almost identical, only varying on specific facts and dates.

1/ The Negotiations Between the Parties Prior to the Case

In its decisions the Authority first explains that in application of articles L.218‐1 et seq. IPC, Meta signed an agreement in December 2021 with the union APIG and another in June 2024 with the collecting society DVP. The agreements covered the use of press content on Meta's services (Facebook and Instagram) from the new French law’s enactment until December 31, 2024 for DVP, and January 31, 2025 for APIG.

New negotiation cycles initiated in 2024 between Meta and APIG/DVP failed to reach an agreement on the amount of the remuneration, the scope of uses covered by the neighbouring right and the Meta services involved. Since the termination of the initial agreements, APIG and DVP members have not received any remuneration from Meta.

APIG and DVP claim that Meta attempted to impose its own method for calculating the remuneration, while refusing to provide the information necessary for an objective assessment of the remuneration.

2/ The Competition Authority’s Analysis of the Likelihood of a Market Power Abuse and the Necessity of Interim Measures

APIG and DVP asked the Authority for urgent interim measures to be taken while these cases are pending (the Authority will later rule on these cases on the merits).

The Authority found that interim measures are justified under Articles L.464‑1 and L.420‑2 of the French commercial code and Article 102 TFEU, including injunctions to negotiate in good faith on the basis of transparent, objective and non‑discriminatory criteria (see 3/). The Authority held that:

-       Meta holds a dominant position given its very large and stable user base, its unparalleled attractiveness for advertisers, and the absence of any sufficiently substitutable social network for publishers to reach audiences and monetise their content. Meta can behave to a significant extent independently of its competitors, trading partners and end users on the relevant market.

-       Meta likely imposed unfair trading conditions on APIG and DVP and their members by using opaque, changing and unilateral remuneration methods of calculation that prevent press publishers from obtaining appropriate compensation for the use of their protected content.

-       Meta’s conduct is likely to constitute an abuse that consists of circumventing the law on neighbouring rights even without formally breaching it, by diverting its purpose without objective justification. This reasoning relies on EU case law such as AstraZeneca (C‑457/10) on abusive use of regulatory procedures by dominant firms, and Meta Platforms Ireland (C‑797/23) of 12 May 2026 concerning the interpretation of Article 15 of Directive 2019/790 (see Michalina Kowala’s post).

-       Meta’s practices cause serious and immediate harm to the press sector by depriving publishers and news agencies of an effective remuneration mechanism in a context of structural decline of their advertising revenues and increasing value capture by digital platforms. 

3/ The Pièce de Résistance: the Interim Measures

Let’s get our teeth into the interesting part of these two decisions (p. 42 to 49):

In both decisions the French Competition Authority orders Meta, on an interim basis and pending a decision on the merits, to:

1/ Negotiate in good faith the remuneration due for the use of protected content belonging to members of APIG and DVP, for all Meta services, in accordance with the terms set out in Article L.218-4 IPC, in a transparent, objective, and non-discriminatory way. Meta is also ordered to maintain display conditions for press content during the negotiations.

2/ Communicate to APIG and VDP the relevant information provided for in Article L218-4 IPC, which shall comprise at least the following:

(i)             the revenues of Meta’s various social networks distributing press content in France, as well as the advertising revenues of each of them, for the years 2024 and 2025;

(ii)            monthly usage data in France regarding the protected content of APIG and DVP, including the number of impressions, clicks, users to whom the content was displayed, and users who interacted with the content, as well as corresponding engagement rates (likes, comments, etc.) and rates of return to or reuse of Meta’s services in connection with the exposure of press content;

(iii)          the usage data specified in point (ii) for all content published by Meta (in aggregate form), to allow for comparison with usage data regarding APIG and DVP members’ content;

(iv)          for each of Meta’s services, a detailed description of the data collected by Meta in France when displaying APIG and DVP members’ content, as well as how that collected data is used; and,

(v)           for each of Meta’s services, a detailed description of the rules and methods for displaying APIG and DVP members’ content applicable in France, accompanied by a history of how these have evolved since the entry into force of the French law on neighbouring rights.

An appeal has been lodged against this decision; we will keep our readers posted…

As a closing thought, let’s note that competition law is also being used in conjunction with copyright law in the field of artificial intelligence: in December 2025, the European Commission opened an investigation into possible anticompetitive conduct by Google in the use of online content of press publishers for AI purposes, with the European Publishers Council (EPC) filing a formal complaint with the Commission in that same case.

Image by congerdesign from Pixabay