A landmark court ruling forces search and social platforms to show what content is actually worth

An EU court judgement means publishers must be provided with platform data as part of any negotiation for content payment.

by Rob Corbidge

Published: 14:47, 14 May 2026

Mysteries of existence abound. Where is the dark matter that would make our current mathematical model of the universe work? What causes were behind the disastrous Bronze Age civilisational collapse? How do your clothes accidentally get snagged on things which you would fail to deliberately snag them on a thousand times? And lastly, and most importantly, exactly how much wealth do the big platforms make on the back of our content?

It seems an answer to the last mystery is on the horizon. Whether near or far horizon is still unknown, but a ruling this week by the Court of Justice of the European Union offers the tantalising prospect of a proper, legally mandated, look under the financial hood of Meta and other platforms when it comes to your content.

Simply explained, in 2023 AGCOM - the Italian Communications Regulatory Authority - in line with national legislation under the EU's Digital Single Market Directive, set criteria to determine fair remuneration for the online use of extracts of proprietary content by platforms.

Such extracts being headlines, thumbnails, summaries, or other short extracts.

Meta, through its Ireland-based EU legal entity, challenged the decision in the Italian courts as being incompatible with current EU copyright law. The case was thus kicked upstairs to the EU's Court of Justice.

This week, the EUCoJ ruled that "The court finds that ⁠a right to fair compensation for publishers is consistent with EU law, provided that that remuneration constitutes consideration for authorising their publications to be used online."

Here's an non-AI generated summary of our own: Meta, and others, will need to pay up.

The issue will now return to the Italian courts, but with a much more clearly defined legal baseline for a ruling, whatever it is.

Crucially for publishers, within the EU judgement there is not only a requirement for payment, but a legal recognition that any negotiations over content use also requires access to platform data. Platform data. The Crown Jewels. 

We have been repeatedly told our content is near worthless by the big players. Witness Meta's behaviour in Canada and Australia, treated like poor provinces in Zuckerworld when they tried to get a better deal for their publishers. 

It all goes to back to publishing's original sin from decades back: not realising the value of what we produced and its value to the platforms, and naively seeing it as just another distribution channel.  We've paid for that ever since, just as the platforms haven't all while accruing unfathomable wealth.

Yet the fact is, to quote the 1984 version of Dune, "He who controls the spice controls the universe". We don't control the universe, and instead have been treated like some backward tribe watching mechanised monsters strip-mining their homeland all while being told that it's for the best, all for progress in the new digital era.

You can't negotiate if you have no idea what value is in the thing you are negotiating over. This has been the case with publishers and platforms for as long as I can remember. We have had no idea what value is in the impressions, engagement, referrals, advertising and other direct and indirect benefits that flow to the platforms from what we produce. With that ignorance as the basis for striking deals, then your butt is hanging out in the wind.

What exactly constitutes platform data is yet to be fully defined, but it's impossible not to be hopeful that we will finally get an understanding of our worth to them. I have to ask you to entertain the possibility that is very little, and that the platforms have actually been operating rather like charities in using our content. And then I'll put the meth pipe down.

Lastly, the EU judgement also covers the threat of retaliation by the platforms - as in the case of Canada and Australia, and in Spain when Google de-newsed the country. Reduced visibility for publishers who do not play ball, or simply the removal of all news, for example. 

The EUCoJ says: "The obligations imposed on providers to enter into negotiations with publishers, without limiting the visibility of content during that period, and to provide the data necessary for calculating the remuneration are also permissible, given that they are capable of ensuring the fairness of those negotiations and that they thus contribute to the objective of protecting publishers."

For one, the European Publishers Council has welcomed the judgement, with chairman, Christian Van Thillo, responding: "This ruling recognises the economic reality that publishers cannot negotiate on equal terms with dominant online platforms without transparency, access to relevant data, and safeguards against coercive behaviour.  It also recognises something even more fundamental - namely that sustainable journalism and media pluralism are essential pillars of democratic society."

This isn't a case of "levelling the playing field", it's more a case of getting to see what the playing field actually looks like, and what sport we're playing. I'm sure we will all watch with some considerable anticipation, as whatever is revealed in Italy will be monumentally revealing for us all.