CJEU Sides with Italian Publishers in Meta v. AGCOM (C-797/23): Regulator-Led Fair Compensation Regime Held Compatible with EU Law

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on 12 May 2026 ruled in Case C-797/23 that an Italian regime requiring online platforms to pay fair compensation to press publishers is compatible with EU law. The preliminary ruling, handed down in proceedings brought by Meta against the Italian communications regulator AGCOM, marks the first time the EU’s top court has addressed whether Member States may oblige platforms to remunerate publishers for the online use of press publications. The judgment lands firmly on the side of publishers.

The dispute originated in an AGCOM administrative order directing Meta to pay fair compensation to Italian newspaper and magazine publishers for the online use of their press publications. Meta challenged the order in Italian courts, contesting both AGCOM’s authority and the validity of the underlying Italian implementing legislation. The Italian national court referred questions to the CJEU on the compatibility of the Italian regime with the EU Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (Directive 2019/790, the DSM Directive). The CJEU has now confirmed that the principal architecture of the Italian framework is consistent with the directive.

The judgment can be distilled into four operative findings of practical importance. First, a right to fair compensation for publishers is compatible with EU law provided that the remuneration constitutes consideration for authorising online use of press publications. Second, publishers must retain the freedom both to refuse authorisation and to grant authorisation free of charge. Third, obligations imposed on providers to enter into negotiations with publishers, to refrain from limiting content visibility during the negotiation period, and to disclose data necessary to calculate remuneration are permissible under EU law. Fourth, no payment may be required from providers that do not actually use the press publications in question.

Article 15 of the DSM Directive requires Member States to introduce neighbouring rights for press publishers covering online use of their press publications by information society service providers. The provision grants Member States considerable discretion in implementation. France has moved toward negotiated package agreements following the Google–AFP framework, while Germany has used independent regulatory bodies to resolve disputes. Italy stands apart in its choice of a regulator-led model in which AGCOM acts as mandatory arbitrator when negotiations fail and may also compel platforms to disclose data on how they use and monetise news content.

The CJEU has approved the architecture of this regulator-led Italian model, while imposing strict conditions on its operation. In particular, the court emphasised that AGCOM may not require payment from platforms that do not actually use press publications. AGCOM must therefore assess actual use on a case-by-case basis. This proviso limits the breadth of any blanket payment obligation but leaves the core framework intact.

Because the judgment is a preliminary ruling, the substantive resolution returns to the Italian courts to apply the CJEU’s interpretation. With the CJEU having endorsed the basic structure of the Italian regime, however, AGCOM’s framework remains effective in practice, and Meta’s scope for overturning the underlying compensation principle has narrowed substantially. Meta has indicated that it will study the ruling carefully.

The ripple effects extend well beyond Italy. The European Publishers Council welcomed the decision as a landmark ruling protecting publishers’ rights, and for regulators implementing the DSM Directive across other Member States the judgment now provides clear legal cover for regulator-led models. The case sets the trajectory toward a stronger pan-European framework for compensating press publishers for the use of their content by search engines and social media platforms.

For Japanese press publishers, the judgment offers a reference case on how rights may be enforced in European markets. For Japanese platform operators with European operations, the ruling crystallises a complex compliance burden encompassing negotiations with local publishers, disclosure of use data, and transparent remuneration calculation methodologies. The reach of the judgment into AI-driven news summarisation and generation services, where the line between use and non-use of press content is increasingly contested, will be a key subject of ongoing debate.