Publishers around the world were spooked by Meta dropping news distribution in Canada in June 2023 but have not given up on getting social media platforms and generative AI firms to pay for the news they use, distribute and profit from.

Australia’s Dec. 12 announcement about a new digital levy on large platforms is another piece of “world-first” legislation from a country determined to make platforms pay for news content.

Australia passed a news media bargaining code in 2021, inspiring other governments to attempt to pass their own versions. These efforts have largely faltered, mainly due to intensive pushback from Google and exit threats from Meta. But publishers and governments have not all given up; Brazil and South Africa are considering digital levies while European countries are invoking E.U. copyright laws. In April, Denmark’s press association told OpenAI that the company needs to negotiate collectively with all publishers or it will be sued. Turkey and New Zealand are moving ahead with Australian-style bills and UK publishers are pressing for action in the new year when new competition laws take effect.

In France, competition authorities have acted against Google four times, most recently requiring Google to pay publishers for its use of news content. In its last decision in March 2024, the French competition authority required Google to be more transparent about its use of publishers’ content for generative AI and also to ensure an effective opt-out.

Australia broke new ground in 2021 when it used competition law to get Google and Facebook to pay for the news they use. Worried about the power imbalance between media outlets and the tech giants, Rod Sims, the then-chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, proposed the code to push “digital platform companies” to negotiate with media outlets. As a backstop, if the two sides could not come to an agreement, the government could step in and require the two sides to go into a binding and relatively speedy arbitration.

The arbitration clause was never invoked. Instead, Google and Meta signed some 60 commercial agreements transferring about $250 million AUSD to outlets each year, according to Sims. The number of outlets covered is not known as some publishers own dozens of outlets, Sims notes. For example, Country Press Australia is counted as one, but it comprises 60 different publishers printing 180 regional newspapers. Smaller outlets have also banded together, represented by attorney Emma McDonald, and Sims believes she secured more (per head) from Google than the larger publishers.

What Australia is doing now is intended to use the new levy to push platforms (probably Meta, Google and Tiktok) to negotiate with publishers and come to agreements. The amounts can then be used to offset the levy. If the platforms don’t make deals, then they can just pay the levy which will likely be more expensive than what they would have agreed under the code. Details of the structure of the levy will be released early in 2025. The Australian government is also creating a $180.0 million AUS news media assistance program to help local media and community broadcasting.

Platform tactics managed to kill bargaining codes in many countries

After Australia passed the code in 2021 and other countries began to emulate it, Google and Meta responded to demands for remuneration with a range of tactics: lobbying policymakers, pitting publishers against each other, suggesting distracting alternatives and using pressure tactics and exit threats.

Government officials, in interviews, have said that the platform tactics are exhausting and time-consuming. But they seem to be working. In Brazil and South Africa, regulators say that bargaining code-type bills are unlikely. In Indonesia, where a presidential decree was issued requiring negotiations, publishers say Google has lawyered up, while the publishers are still trying to figure out how to negotiate with Google.

When companies don’t like a new law or tax they often threaten to exit. Google “testing” dropping news in California and in Europe and the fact that Meta stopped distributing news in Canada, causing a dire plunge in publisher traffic, have made governments fearful of bargaining codes. The idea of a levy seems to be a clever way of pushing platforms to negotiate. Government authorities in Brazil and South Africa have also discussed the levy idea. Whether Australia’s move will inspire those governments, is not known.

In the meantime, the platforms have offered tiny carrots and threatened potentially scary sticks. In South Africa, Google seems to have stopped a bargaining code style law and, in November, announced the creation of a $6 million fund to support local journalism to be given to smaller, independent publishers over three years. This is a risible amount when compared to estimates for what a fair price would be. Law firm Webber Wentzel’s presentation to the competition authority in August estimates that losses to journalism from the platform monopoly are closer to a cumulative 70 million USD for the period 2011-2022. Harms, of course, are one way that lawyers estimate damages and amounts owed. South Africa’s competition authority has delayed publishing its provisional market inquiry report, but early indications suggest they will focus on the fund idea rather than pursuing a bargaining code.

“Ever since the initial success of the Australian News Media Bargaining Code in 2022, we have seen the platforms strongly push back elsewhere, deploying hugely resourced global lobbying operations against laws and proposed regulations in Brazil, Canada, California and Indonesia. These measures have either been watered down or stalled completely. The platforms’ message to the rest of the world about the Australian precedent was ‘don’t try this at home’,” said Michael Markovitz, head of the Johannesburg-based Gordon Institute of Business Science Media Leadership Think Tank.

Digital levies, digital services taxes now being discussed

Digital levies on Big Tech have become entwined with international efforts over decades to get U.S. companies to pay taxes. When it looked like the U.S. might sign off on a plan from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development — an intergovernmental organization with 38 member countries dedicated to stimulating economic progress and world trade — to raise corporate taxes and close some loopholes, countries around the world suspended plans to impose digital service taxes. Because digital companies operate all over the world and generate revenue in countries where they do not have a physical presence (offices, headquarters or employees) they can avoid taxation by shifting revenue and profit around the world. To address this, digital service taxes tax any kind of digital service anywhere in the world. According to PWC, these may be levied on online sales, digital advertising, data usage, e-commerce, or streaming services.

Now that it seems unlikely the U.S. will move ahead with the OECD agreement, countries are again discussing digital service taxes. However, the U.S. government and tech companies oppose them, and the funds raised have not been used to support journalism. Australia’s is unusual in that its intent is to push the platforms to strike deals with publishers.

Meanwhile, the Brazilian senate on Dec. 11 approved an AI bill (2338/2023) that will require transparency regarding data used by AI, prohibition of unauthorized content usage and the establishment of a remuneration mechanism for copyright holders. According to Maia Fortes, director of Brazil’s digital journalism association, AJOR, the bill will now move to the chamber of deputies for a vote expected in early 2025.

But whether it is codes or levies or copyright enforcement, Big Tech is mighty, and the push to get funding is not for the faint-hearted.

“Bargaining codes and legislative solutions have only statistically worked where publishers were brave enough to stick together and present a united front, and the government was so strong as to resist unprecedented lobbying efforts and investments. In most cases, weak states or individualistic actors allowed the undeniable imbalance of resources and contacts of big tech to reserve some economic compensation to a few, while the rest of the national market was left behind,” said Elena Perotti, executive director of media policy and public affairs at WAN-IFRA, the World Association of News Publishers.

This article is based on interviews with regulators, journalism organizations and publishers in 12 different countries. Felipe Lopes and Lei Zhu contributed research.