Meta Loses French Appeal Over Press Publisher Payments and Neighbouring Rights

Meta Platforms has lost its appeal against interim measures imposed by France’s competition authority over payments for the use of press content, leaving the technology company under orders to negotiate with French media organisations in good faith.

The Paris Court of Appeals rejected Meta’s challenge on 29 October, upholding measures introduced in July by the French Competition Authority. The requirements cover negotiations with press publishers and agencies, the disclosure of relevant information about platform revenue and the use of protected content, and restrictions on reducing the visibility of press material.

The court said Meta’s methods for determining payments under France’s neighbouring-rights framework could constitute an abuse of a dominant position under French and European competition law. The ruling concerns interim measures rather than a final determination of the underlying competition case.

Meta said it was disappointed with the decision and was assessing its next steps. The company added that it would continue complying with the measures and negotiating in good faith.

Why France’s neighbouring-rights dispute matters

France’s neighbouring-rights framework gives eligible press publishers and news agencies rights relating to the digital reuse of their content. The rules are intended to provide a basis for negotiating remuneration when digital platforms reuse protected journalistic material.

The dispute centres on negotiations between Meta and two French media organisations: the Alliance de la Presse d’Information Générale (APIG) and the Société des Droits Voisins de la Presse (DVP).

The organisations complained to the French Competition Authority about Meta’s approach to calculating payments and the information made available to assess its remuneration proposals. The regulator said the practices under examination were likely to constitute an abuse of dominant position and could cause serious and immediate harm to the press sector.

In its 8 July decision, the authority ordered Meta to resume negotiations in good faith and provide information needed to assess its remuneration proposals.

What the court decision means for Meta

The rejection of Meta’s appeal leaves the interim requirements in place. These include engaging with press organisations over remuneration, sharing relevant information about platform revenue and the use of protected press content, and avoiding reductions in the way press content is displayed.

The measures are intended to address the regulator’s concerns while the broader dispute is considered. The decision does not establish a final payment amount for publishers or resolve every issue concerning the calculation of neighbouring-rights remuneration.

For Meta, the immediate requirement is to continue complying with the measures while pursuing any further steps available to it.

Implications for publishers and digital platforms

The ruling has commercial implications for publishers seeking payment for the use of journalism on digital platforms. Access to relevant information about content use and platform revenue can influence negotiations over the value of licensed material and the basis on which remuneration is calculated.

For digital platforms, the case highlights the regulatory importance of how content licensing proposals are developed and negotiated. Transparent criteria and access to relevant information are central issues in the French proceedings.

The outcome may also be relevant to other media organisations examining how neighbouring rights operate in practice. However, the decision relates to the specific French proceedings and should not be interpreted as establishing identical obligations in every jurisdiction.

Meta says it will continue negotiations

Meta had previously challenged the competition authority’s measures, arguing that it had negotiated constructively with the media organisations and that the conditions for imposing interim measures had not been met.

In a statement published before the appeal hearing, Meta said it had offered extensions to earlier agreements and had shared information and remuneration proposals during negotiations. Those assertions represent the company’s position in the dispute.

Following the court’s decision, Meta said it would continue to comply with the interim requirements and negotiate in good faith.

Follow B2B Market Signal on social media for the latest business news, industry developments, market intelligence and analysis. Connect with us on LinkedIn and follow us on Instagram at @b2bmarketsignal for regular updates.