Neighbouring rights: the French Competition Authority compels Meta to negotiate in good faith with press publishers and news agencies
By two decisions handed down on 8 July 2026, the Autorité de la concurrence (French Competition Authority) imposed interim measures on Meta, following a complaint from the Société des Droits Voisins de la Presse (DVP) and the Alliance de la Presse d’Information Générale (APIG). These decisions illustrate, once again, the persistent difficulty of getting the major digital platforms to comply with the framework established by the Law of 24 July 2019 on press publishers’ neighbouring rights.
Background
The Law of 24 July 2019, transposing the European Directive of 17 April 2019, created a neighbouring right for press publishers and news agencies, intended to secure them fair remuneration when their content is reused by digital platforms.
On that basis, Meta had concluded two agreements, one with APIG in December 2021 and the other with DVP in June 2024, covering the period from the entry into force of the law until the end of 2024, or January 2025 in the case of APIG. Since those agreements expired, no further remuneration has been paid to the publishers and agencies concerned, for lack of agreement on the amount due, the scope of the uses covered and the Meta services concerned.
Practices liable to constitute an abuse of a dominant position
The Authority considers that Meta is likely to hold a dominant position on the market for personal social networking services, given in particular the scale of its user base and the variety of uses its platforms can serve.
Two sets of conduct are singled out:
The imposition of unfair trading conditions. Meta allegedly sought to impose its own methodology for assessing remuneration, with no regard for the alternative methods put forward by APIG and DVP. The Authority also notes that excluding, as a matter of principle, almost all Meta services that distribute press content from the scope of the negotiations (with the exception of content posted by users on Facebook) could deprive the statutory framework of part of its effect.
Circumvention of the law. The Authority notes that Meta allegedly refused to provide publishers with the information needed for an informed discussion, or provided it only late and in a degraded form. This withholding of information, in particular on the revenue generated from the use of the content and on its actual uses, is said to perpetuate an information asymmetry at odds with the rebalancing objective pursued by the legislature.
Serious and immediate harm justifying interim measures
The Authority finds that the absence of remuneration since early 2025, while publishers’ content continues to be distributed on Meta’s services, causes direct financial harm to the members of DVP and APIG. It regards this as a factor aggravating the economic precariousness of part of an already weakened press sector, and as a threat to maintaining the quality of information.
The content of the injunctions
The Authority ordered Meta:
to resume negotiations in good faith with press publishers and news agencies, on the basis of transparent, objective and non-discriminatory criteria, with those negotiations covering the period since early 2025;
to provide, within fifteen days, the information needed to conduct the negotiations, as specifically listed in the decision;
not to degrade, for the entire duration of the negotiations, the way in which content from APIG and DVP members is displayed on its services;
to submit regular reports to the Authority on its compliance with the injunctions.
These interim measures will remain in force until the Authority’s decision on the merits, subject to any legislative change affecting the neighbouring rights framework.
Key takeaways
This decision confirms the Autorité de la concurrence’s vigilance regarding the practices of the major platforms in implementing neighbouring rights, nearly seven years after the 2019 law came into force. It is a useful reminder that the duty to negotiate in good faith requires genuine transparency on the data needed to assess remuneration proposals objectively, rather than the mere imposition of a unilateral methodology.
Press publishers and news agencies thus have a new foothold from which to assert their rights against digital platforms. The case deserves close attention, both as regards the interim measures and the investigation on the merits now continuing before the Authority.
Sources:
To go further and keep pace with developments in the sector, we place our expertise at your disposal to support your business over the long term, particularly in protecting and monetising your content.