The EU adopted the press publishers’ right in 2019 to strengthen the bargaining position of press publishers towards online intermediaries, big tech in particular. The expected licensing fees were supposed to help to sustain the European press sector, allowing publishers to continue producing quality journalistic content and to foster public debate in our democratic societies. Presented in this way, the press publishers’ right is a clear ally of freedom of expression, fostering exchanges of information and knowledge.

Still, as the press publishers’ right is an intellectual property right giving publishers control over information flows, by its nature it interferes with freedom of expression. Concerns about the restrictions it could impose on users sharing press content online were expressed early on during the legislative process. The discussion on the potential impact of the press publishers’ right on research and researchers centred on the exclusion of scientific and academic periodicals from the right’s scope. With the press publishers’ right now part of Member States’ laws, its (expanding) scope being investigated by the CJEU, and negotiations between (some) press publishers and online intermediaries pending, the right’s potential to interfere with information and knowledge flows is becoming more visible. Researchers, much like the general public, have an interest in being able to share, comment on and reflect upon matters of public interest brought forward by the press in online fora. As such, this post considers the press publishers’ right’s potential to curtail European researchers’ activities.

The legal nature of the press publishers’ right

The press publishers’ right is a right related to copyright introduced by Art. 15 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSMD). It benefits publishers of press publications in the context of online uses of their content by information society service providers (ISSPs). It is an exclusive right of a prohibitory nature, which means ISSPs wishing to use press publications in their services need to seek prior authorisation from publishers who, in turn, might refuse to give their consent. The immediate addressee of the new right was Alphabet as it was the use of links and short extracts of press publications in Google News and Google Search which motivated the EU legislator to act. Press publishers argued that it is their content which makes intermediaries like Google attractive to audiences, entitling them to the payment, a share of the digital advertising revenues.

As the focus was on intermediaries, big tech reaping the lion’s share of advertising revenues in particular, individual users were to be left undisturbed. Apart from specifying that the relevant online uses are those carried out by ISSPs and covered by the rights of making available and reproduction, Art. 15(1) CDSMD provides that the right “shall not apply to private or non-commercial uses of press publications by individual users”, seemingly strengthening individuals’ protection. The exclusion of scientific and academic periodicals from the scope of the new right, while at first included only in the recitals, has found its way into the definition of the press publication in Art. 2(4) CDSMD during the legislative process. Considering both exclusions, researchers should be free to share and engage with press publications online without seeking prior permission of the publishers or paying a licensing fee.

Not needing to obtain authorisation to share and reflect on the press publishers’ content online is, however, not sufficient to safeguard researchers’ access to information and knowledge if we consider where this sharing and reflecting takes place: on social media platforms.

The social media problem

Researchers and academics use social media in a variety of ways. While promotion of their own work, be that in search of feedback from colleagues or in pursuit of impact, might be the most self-evident, social media also serves as a source of information and data. It allows for timely and accessible reflection on the news of the day and recent policy developments, fostering conversations (as well as disagreements) among researchers. When Twitter/X, for years the social medium of choice for academics, changed ownership and consequently its content policies, many mourned the loss of a forum it provided and moved to other platforms such as Mastodon, Bluesky, Threads, and increasingly LinkedIn, trying to recreate “academic Twitter”.

The fact that the regulation of online intermediaries has an indirect impact on their users is widely recognised. By imposing liabilities on intermediaries, legislators unavoidably affect the experience of users. The concerns about the restrictions of users’ freedoms were at the forefront of the discussion on the new intermediary liability regime introduced by Art. 17 CDSMD since it implicitly requires intermediaries to engage in pre-emptive filtering of copyright content (an interpretation confirmed by the CJEU in Poland). As already noted, the concerns over users’ access to information in the context of the press publishers’ right were expressed early on, but mostly with regard to bringing users’ activities directly within the remit of the new right, rather than indirectly through the regulation of intermediaries such as social media.

The press publishers’ right covers online uses by information society service providers, with such service defined as any service, normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means, and at the individual request of the recipient. Recital 54 of the CDSMD points to search engines and media monitoring services as examples of ISSPs covered. During the implementation of the CDSMD, Member States differed in their approaches as to whether to include social media within the press publishers’ right scope, recognising that the nature of collection of content between search (on their own) and social media (from users) varies. Press publishers trying to negotiate with social media for payments under Art. 15 CDSMD are usually met with opposition, with the notable exception of Meta entering into a licensing agreement with French press publishers but refusing to do so in other jurisdictions, including Italy.

Meta case

Meta’s objections to the Italian implementation of the press publishers’ right have led to the first preliminary reference to the CJEU concerning Art. 15 CDSMD. The Meta reference (C-797/23) enquires about the compliance of the Italian implementation and the bargaining mechanism it introduces with Art. 15 CDSMD, the freedom of competition, and the freedom to conduct business, both provided by the Charter. While none of the questions explicitly concerns the question of whether the press publishers’ right applies to social media, the issue featured prominently during the hearing and was addressed by AG Szpunar in his July 2025 opinion on the case.

The arguments made by the parties during the February 2025 hearing focused on whether Facebook’s activities can or cannot be considered as relevant online uses, covered by the exclusive right of making available to the public enjoyed by the publishers. The European Commission did not take a firm stand on the issue, pointing to different functions of social media, naming some as being relevant for the press publishers’ right and others not. AG Szpunar on the other hand, took a definite stand, calling Facebook a “truly autonomous content provider” that actively suggests content to users. Consequently, according to AG Szpunar, it is Facebook which uses the press content, and not users who share it, thus bringing social media within the scope of the press publishers’ right. Noticeably absent during the hearing and in AG Szpunar’s opinion was the consideration of the exclusion of private and non-commercial uses from the scope of the press publishers’ right and the difficulty of reconciling this exclusion with the inclusion of social media within the right’s scope.

If brought within the scope of the press publishers’ right, social media that would like to continue to allow their users to share press content would need to conclude licensing agreements with press publishers. This means that users would not be allowed to share press publications on social media unless such agreements were in place. This is hardly a situation in which private and non-commercial uses are left undisturbed, making their exclusion from the scope of the press publishers’ right meaningless. The push to include social media within the scope of the right illustrates the discrepancy between the aims of the right and its consequences: the flow of knowledge and information is not uninterrupted if it hinges on the (private) licensing agreements.

Pick-and-choose licensing

The licensing negotiations between press publishers and platforms are ongoing. With Art. 15 CDSMD providing only the legal basis for negotiations, the bargaining takes a variety of formats depending on the approach implemented by each Member State. Publishers can negotiate individually, collectively, or be represented by a collective management organisation. They can also decide not to negotiate, either because they are not seeking remuneration or because they do not wish their content to be used by a particular online intermediary. An ISSP could also decide not to negotiate with press publishers and bring the use of press publications in their services to a halt.

There is no database which exhaustively indexes the licensing agreements reached between press publishers and online intermediaries. The knowledge we have on them comes from press reports and press releases and is by its nature incomplete. In the end, those are private agreements which come with no transparency obligations. Based on the limited information available, we can see that contracting follows a pick-and-choose pattern: due to their bargaining power, online intermediaries choose with whom to negotiate and who to remunerate. Why does this matter for knowledge and information flows? Because without a licensing agreement in place, the content of a press publisher will not be available in the online intermediary’s service for researchers to share, comment on and reflect upon.

Researchers already encounter numerous paywalls when trying to read and keep up to date on current policy developments. What we could end up with is a situation where content remains available when its publishers have an established position on the market, and whose content online intermediaries cannot risk lacking from their services while the content of smaller and less established information providers becomes unavailable. In the long run, this could distort the image and the discussions we are having in online fora.

Conclusion

Press publishers’ right is a provision which at first does not seem to be relevant to research and knowledge flows. It does not apply to academic and scientific publications and it offers built-in safeguards that allow individuals to share and reflect on the press content in online fora. Alas, the right is a perfect example of how a solution, which was not thought of as affecting research and academic discourses, has the potential to do so. While the right is limited in time (two years), academic discourses, especially those concerning policy developments, are time-sensitive. And it is on social media where informal discussions take place. Limiting the ability to share and discuss matters of public interest brought forward by the press in online fora does not foster academic freedom. The press publishers’ right could be a cautionary tale: taking into account the interests of researchers and academic institutions should become the norm when considering new legislative interventions, in the digital environment in particular.