The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth, From META to STREAMZ: Safeguarding Creators’ Remuneration Interests in the Digital Environment

On 12 May 2026, the CJEU issued its ruling in Meta (C-797/23). This case raised significant media attention. It focuses on the rights of publishers of press publications pursuant to Article 15 Directive (EU) 2019/790 (“CDSMD”), introduced to strengthen their position against information society service providers (“ISSPs”). However, it will very likely have broader implications for EU copyright law as it emphasizes the necessity of institutional guarantees to ensure the effectiveness of rights beyond the mere grant of exclusive control over copyright-protected works. In particular, it should lead to the validation of additional regulatory mechanisms to protect fair remuneration of authors and performers in the digital environment in another pending case before the CJEU, Streamz (C-663/24), whose hearing is scheduled for 6 July (for early comment, see Dusollier 2025; Izyumenko 2024; Kyrylenko 2024).

In this case, major cultural enterprises (Sony, Universal, Warner, and others) and digital distributors (Google, Spotify, Streamz), in an unusual and surprising alliance against creators, have challenged the validity of a Belgian law implementing so-called “residual remuneration rights” for authors and performers in the digital environment. Residual remuneration rights are unwaivable statutory economic entitlements for creators, retained upon the transfer of exclusive rights. Their aim is to redistribute appropriate and proportionate remuneration, overcoming some of the weaknesses of mere contractual protection. Indeed, authors and performers often face a proven situation of unequal bargaining power, resulting in the difficulties of direct negotiations and reticence to enforce their rights.

Additional statutory remuneration guarantees, such as residual remuneration rights, could thus finally help reinstall creators at the center EU copyright law, putting an end to a 300 years old “copyright robbery” (to use the famous expression of Bernt Hugenholtz 2000), and with that strengthening the legitimacy of the EU copyright system in a substantial manner (see further Geiger, Scalzini, Bossi 2025, on which this post is based). 

Background of the Meta case

Italy implemented Article 15 CDSMD through a new Article 43-bis Italian Copyright Act, however going beyond its normative content. This provision not only grants press publishers exclusive rights over the online use of press publications by ISSPs, but also introduces a “fair compensation” (in Italian, “equo compenso”) supervised by the Italian communications authority (“AGCOM”). While this expression is often associated with limitations to exclusive rights, the Italian system seemed to incorporate hybrid elements, leaving the exclusive right intact and, thus, resembling theoretically far more what is known in copyright scholarship as a “residual remuneration right” (for a taxonomy of remuneration rights for creators, see Geiger and Bulayenko 2022). For this reason, Meta offers many parallels with Streamz, as discussed below. This provision also adds obligations on ISSPs (i.e., transparency and avoiding limiting visibility) and interference powers on the public authority (i.e., identifying remuneration criteria, specifying the amount in absence of agreement, and imposing fines).

In January 2023, AGCOM determined the criteria for this fair compensation with Resolution No 3/23/CONS. Upon Meta’s request for annulment, the Italian Regional Administrative Court of Lazio (Case No 18790/2023), in December 2023, referred questions to the CJEU and suspended its effectiveness. However, in March 2024, the Italian Council of State (Case No. 894/2024) rejected the suspension for the absence of danger in delay. Consequently, AGCOM determined fair compensation in a few cases, including for Meta in July 2025 (Resolution No 180/25/CONS).

Exclusive rights remain but they must be effective

According to the CJEU, the protection conferred by exclusive rights “is not limited to the enjoyment of those rights, but also extends to the exercise of those rights, exercise which, in practice, must be effective” (para. 60). In other terms, while recognizing that the preventive character should persist and no payment unrelated to use should be imposed, it underlines that exclusive rights have limits in a situation of dependence and imbalance of power. As Member States enjoy discretion in specifying detailed rules for implementing these rights, the CJEU validates the regulatory intervention of a public authority, justified by the weaker position of press publishers.

This public intervention may even go so far as to an administrative determination of remuneration if the parties cannot agree. In this case, the CJEU stresses that the parties remain free not to conclude a contract. However, it is implied that this decision shall not constitute an abuse or a breach of good faith. Where platforms cannot realistically avoid using press content, it is questioned to what extent the parties remain capable in practice of agreeing on a compensation different from that determined by the authority. Particularly in situations of large market inequalities, the Italian model may be close to a residual remuneration system whose amount is eventually determined by a regulator. Interestingly, the validation of the intervention of independent authorities to secure a fair balance of interest in the digital environment could have broad consequences also for remuneration models for the benefit of creators (Geiger and Iaia 2025). 

Freedom to conduct a business is not absolute

While recognizing a limitation on the freedom to conduct a business pursuant to Article 16 CFREU, the CJEU deems the Italian intervention admissible pursuant to Article 52(1) CFREU. Indeed, it is provided by law, does not prevent all business activity, and contributes to the CDSMD’s objectives, notably encouraging the contribution of press publishers to ensure the sustainability of the publishing industry and foster reliable information.

One of the most significant points seems to be the reasoning concerning the proportionality and necessity of this limitation. The CJEU affirms that “it is not obvious that there are less restrictive measures capable of achieving the objective pursued by that legislation just as effectively, in so far as publishers of press publications are in a weaker negotiating position than information society service providers as regards the determination of the remuneration at issue” (para. 95). If no other mechanism is available, it is questioned whether the implementation of similar public intervention mechanisms is only a matter of discretion for Member States or a proper obligation to ensure the CDSMD’s effet utile.

Implications beyond press publishers in Streamz

Article 15 CDSMD was heavily criticized as the copyright system is founded on creators rather than on the protection of investments (Geiger, Frosio, Bulayenko 2017; ECS 2016). Surprisingly, this judgment does not mention journalists at all, while they should be the primary concern of the legislator and the judiciary, and the primary addressees of additional remuneration mechanisms given their difficult economic situation. An independent press is the result of independent writers, which are able to make their living from their activity. Press publishers already generally hold all the copyrights on the articles in their publications, either by contract or ab initio. Nevertheless, this ruling is likely to have important implications for authors and performers when read in conjunction with Streamz.

The first part of Streamz (questions 1-3) once again concerns press publishers. Indeed, in August 2022, the Belgian legislature transposed Article 15 CDSMD introducing a system that resembles the Italian one pursuant to Article XI.216/2 Belgian Code of Economic Law. The connections are evident and it is plausible that the CJEU will reiterate its position above.

However, it is in the second part of Streamz (questions 4-13) concerning authors and performers where Meta could have broader implications. The Belgian legislature transposed Article 18 CDSMD (“principle of appropriate and proportionate remuneration” for creators) introducing new Articles XI.228/4 and XI.228/11 Belgian Code of Economic Law. These provisions included two residual remuneration rights for authors and performers triggered by the communication to the public by online content-sharing service providers (“OCSSPs”) or streaming service providers. Regardless of the contractual disposition of exclusive rights, authors and performers retain a direct economic entitlement. Both rights are non-transferable, non-waivable, and subject to mandatory collective management.

Tensions already emerged during the legislative process. Notably, the European Commission first raised doubts (Letters of 6.10.2021 and 20.12.2021 in DOC 55 No. 2608/002 of 4.05.2022, pp. 4-5) and then validated in principle unwaivable remuneration rights (Answer Commission of 20.07.2022). For its part, the Belgian government considered that “there is a legal basis for this choice, Art. 18 CDSMD”, that “this mechanism is the only capable of guaranteeing appropriate remuneration” and “this choice places artists in a strong position during negotiations, which direct negotiation cannot guarantee today” (DOC 55 2608/003 of 13.05.2022, pp. 31-32).

As in Meta, one pivotal issue concerns the limits to contractual freedom in favor of weaker parties. Since the CJEU validated public intervention mechanisms in relation to press publishers, it would be surprising if they would not be admissible when benefiting authors and performers. Creators face an even worse position in the face of exploiters. Parties remain free to conclude agreements, but residual remuneration rights expressly safeguard their fair remuneration. More fundamentally, they would ensure that (finally) the copyright of authors and performers benefits creators and not mainly their derivative rightholders. This would be very welcome as many are struggling to derive appropriate revenue from the online exploitation of their work (concerning streaming, Senftleben and Izyumenko 2025; concerning social media, Bossi 2026).

Another discussed point in Streamz is the compatibility with Article 17 CDSMD (“Use of protected content by online content-sharing service providers”). In Meta, Article 15(1) CDSMD was considered “a measure of full harmonization of the corresponding substantive law” (para. 49), but “neither Article 15 of Directive 2019/790 nor any other provision of that directive specifies the detailed rules for implementing those rights” (para. 51). Similarly, even if Article 17 CDSMD is considered a measure of full harmonization of substantive law, this harmonization cannot extend to what the provision does not regulate, in particular the remuneration and how it should be paid, allowing Member States to define enforcement mechanisms.

Conclusion

The Meta case provides a clear example of the need for institutional guarantees to ensure a fair allocation of value in copyright markets dominated by large players. The CJEU opens the way to supervised negotiations and administrative price-settings, which may become binding in sectors characterized by structural dependence on large digital platforms. In the absence of viable alternatives, Member States may be required to adopt similar measures.

However, one of the largest takeaways from this ruling is not about press publishers, but about the effectiveness of the protection granted by copyright law and how to design a system that finally benefits those it intends to protect. It is thus interesting as it offers new regulatory options to safeguard remuneration interests beyond exclusive right. Let’s hope the CJEU, in the forthcoming Streamz case, consolidates its findings in Meta and (finally) protects the fair remuneration of creators, certainly so far the most fragile players in the cultural ecosystem and the forgotten of copyright’s benefit in the Generative AI area (Geiger, 2024; Geiger and Iaia 2024). The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth…

Photo courtesy of Matteo Losurdo, “Non può essere solo treno”, 2011.