What changed between the draft committee report and the plenary report

Removed:Recital 36: (36) Building on the useful role played by ERGA in monitoring compliance by the signatories of EU Code of Practice on Disinformation, the Board should, at least on a yearly basis, organise a structured dialogue between providers of very large online platforms, representatives of media service providers and representatives of civil society to foster access to diverse offers of independent media on very large online platforms, discuss experience and best practices related to the application of the relevant provisions of this Regulation, to monitor adherence to self-regulatory initiatives aimed at protecting society from harmful content, including those aimed at countering disinformation, and to assess possible negative effects that such initiatives or content moderation policies might have on the freedom and pluralism of the media. The Commission may, where relevant, examine the reports on the results of such structured dialogues when assessing systemic and emerging issues across the Union under Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX [Digital Services Act] and may ask the Board to support it to this effect.

Added:Recital 17: (17) The protection of journalistic sources and communications is currently regulated heterogeneously in the Member States. Some Member States provide an absolute protection against coercing journalists to disclose information that identify their source in criminal and administrative proceedings. Other Member States provide a qualified protection confined to judicial proceedings based on certain criminal charges, while others provide protection in the form of a general principle. In spite of existing standards codified by the Council of Europe and of established case law by the European Court of Human Rights, practical examples from several Member States have revealed that there are very different approaches to the matter and that journalistic sources are not protected in some situations. This leads to fragmentation in the internal media market. As a result, journalists, which work increasingly on cross-border projects and provide their services to cross-border audiences, and by extension providers of media services, are likely to face barriers, legal uncertainty and uneven conditions of competition. Therefore, the protection of journalistic sources and communications needs to be strengthened as comprehensively and as extensively as possible. To that end, this Regulation harmonises the standard of protection provided to journalistic sources and communications by introducing minimum rules at Union level. An interference with journalistic sources always needs to be balanced aga…

Removed:Recital 37: (37) Recipients of audiovisual media services should be able to effectively choose the audiovisual content they want to watch according to their preferences. Their freedom in this area may however be constrained by commercial practices in the media sector, namely agreements for content prioritisation between manufacturers of devices or providers of user interfaces controlling or managing access to and use of audiovisual media services, such as connected televisions, and media service providers. Prioritisation can be implemented, for example, on the home screen of a device, through hardware or software shortcuts, applications and search areas, which have implications on the recipients’ viewing behaviour, who may be unduly incentivised to choose certain audiovisual media offers over others. Service recipients should have the possibility to change, in a simple and user-friendly manner, the default settings of a device or user interface controlling and managing access to, and use of, audiovisual media services, without prejudice to measures to ensure the appropriate prominence of audiovisual media services of general interest, in particular measures implementing Article 7a of Directive 2010/13/EU, taken in the pursuit of legitimate public policy considerations.

Added:Recital 17 a (new): (17a) Digital safety and the confidentiality of electronic communications have become a major concern for journalists and media workers. In light of that fact, the promotion and protection of anonymisation tools and end-to-end encrypted services used by media service providers and their employees needs to be encouraged at Union level in order to ensure an equal level of access to such equipment across all Member States. Those tools have become vital for them to freely exercise their work and their rights to privacy, to data protection and to the freedom of expression, including by securing their communications and protecting the confidentiality of their sources.

Removed:Recital 38: (38) Different legislative, regulatory or administrative measures can negatively affect and restrict the operation of media service providers in the internal market. They include, for example, rules to limit the ownership of media companies by other companies active in the media sector or non-media related sectors. The disproportionate or distorted implementation at national level of the minimum requirements provided for in Directive 2010/13/EU can create new barriers to the internal market. They also include decisions related to licensing, authorisation or prior notification for media service providers. In order to mitigate their potential negative impact on the functioning of the internal market for media services and enhance legal certainty, it is important that such measures minimise disruptions to the activities of media service providers and comply with the principles of objective justification, transparency, non-discrimination and proportionality.

Added:Recital 18: (18) Public service media established by the Member States play a particular role in the internal media market and in safeguarding media pluralism, by ensuring that citizens and businesses have access to a diverse content offer, including quality information and impartial media coverage, as part of their remit. They provide a forum for public discussion and a means of promoting the broader democratic participation of individuals. That is why media pluralism can only be guaranteed by a proper diversity reflected in the content offer of public service media. Independence of public service media is particularly important during electoral periods to ensure citizens have access to impartial and quality information. However, public service media can be particularly exposed to the risk of interference, given their institutional proximity to the State and the public funding they receive, which might expose them to additional vulnerabilities compared to other players in the internal media market to the extent that they threaten their existence. This risk may be exacerbated by uneven safeguards related to independent governance and balanced coverage by public service media across the Union. This risk can also result in politically appointed senior management exerting pressure on the editorial independence of journalists and editors-in-chief for political or economic interests. Those situations may lead to biased or partial media coverage, distort competition in the internal media marke…

Removed:Recital 39: (39) It is also key that the Board is empowered to issue an opinion, where national measures are likely to affect the functioning of the internal market for media services. This is, for example, the case when a national administrative measure is addressed to a media service provider providing its services towards more than one Member State, or when the concerned media service provider has a significant influence on the formation of public opinion in that Member State or if such a measure prevents a media service established in one Member State from providing services or starting operations in another Member State. A media service provider individually and directly affected by such a measure and the Commission should be able to request that the Board draw up opinions on such measures.

Added:Recital 18 a (new): (18a) For the benefit of European audiences, public service media providers should promote media pluralism and contribute to making media markets more robust. They should offer an extensive array of content catering to diverse interests, perspectives and demographics, encompassing all segments of society, including minorities.

Removed:Recital 40: (40) Media play a decisive role in shaping public opinion and helping citizens participate in democratic processes. This is why Member States should provide for rules and procedures in their legal systems to ensure assessment of media market concentrations that could have a significant impact on media pluralism. Such rules and procedures can have an impact on the freedom to provide media services in the internal market and need to be properly framed and be transparent, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Market concentrations subject to such rules should be understood as covering those which could result in a single entity controlling or having significant interests in media services which have substantial influence on the formation of public opinion or very large online platforms carrying content provided by media service providers and very large online search engines which control access and visibility to the content of media service providers in a given media market, within a media sub-sector or across different media sectors in one or more Member States. An important criterion to be taken into account is the reduction of competing views within that market as a result of the concentration.

Added:Recital 18 b (new): (18b) Article 5(2) should not apply to a media service provider that is part of a group of which the securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market of any Member State and of which the total revenues linked to the public service remit represent less than 10 % of the consolidated media related revenue of such group at the time at which this Regulation enters into force.

Removed:Recital 41: (41) National regulatory authorities or bodies, who have specific expertise in the area of media pluralism, should be involved in the assessment of the impact of media market concentrations on media pluralism where they are not the designated authorities or bodies themselves. In order to foster legal certainty and ensure that the rules and procedures are genuinely geared at protecting media pluralism, it is essential that objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria for notifying and assessing the impact of market concentrations on media pluralism are set out in advance.

Added:Recital 19: (19) It is crucial for the recipients of media services to know with certainty who owns and is behind the news media so that they can identify and understand potential conflicts of interest which is a prerequisite for forming well-informed opinions and consequently to actively participate in a democracy. Such transparency is, therefore, an effective tool to limit risks of interference with editorial independence. It is thus necessary to introduce common information requirements for media service providers exercising editorial responsibility across the Union that should include proportionate requirements to disclose ownership information. In this context, the measures taken by Member States under Article 30(9) of Directive (EU) 2015/84949 should not be affected. The required information should be disclosed by the relevant providers on their websites or other medium that is easily and directly accessible in a user-friendly format. It is therefore necessary that Member States entrust a relevant national regulatory authority or body with monitoring compliance with such information requirements and with developing and maintaining a media ownership database. That national regulatory authority or body should be able to request and receive additional information from media service providers relevant to its tasks. To further strengthen and guarantee the accessibility and uniformity of the information available to recipients of media services, the Board should establish and maintain a …

Removed:Recital 42: (42) When a media market concentration constitutes a concentration falling within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/200455 , the application of this Regulation or of any rules and procedures adopted by Member States on the basis of this Regulation should not affect the application of Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. Any measures taken by the designated or involved national regulatory authorities or bodies based on their assessment of the impact of media market concentrations on media pluralism should therefore be aimed at protecting freedom and pluralism of the media as a legitimate interests within the meaning of Article 21(4), third subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, and should be in line with the general principles and other provisions of Union law.

Added:Recital 19 a (new): (19a) Public access to certain contact details, ownership information and information on state advertising and state financial support allocated to media service providers is essential so that the recipients of media services can understand and scrutinise potential conflicts of interest, contributing at the same time to preserving trust and facilitating the timely and efficient availability of information for national regulatory authorities or bodies or the Board. Nevertheless, in order to mitigate possible administrative burden, certain categories of data should be provided only in duly justified cases, in a proportionate and balanced manner and to guarantee the rights to respect for private life and the protection of personal data.

Removed:Recital 43: (43) The Board should be empowered to provide opinions on draft decisions or opinions by the designated or involved national regulatory authorities or bodies, where the notifiable concentrations may affect the functioning of the internal media market. This would be the case, for example, where such concentrations involve at least one undertaking established in another Member State or operating in more than one Member State or result in media service providers having a significant influence on formation of public opinion in a given media market. Moreover, where the concentration has not been assessed for its impact on media pluralism by the relevant national authorities or bodies, or where the national regulatory authorities or bodies have not consulted the Board regarding a given media market concentration, but that media market concentration is considered likely to affect the functioning of the internal market for media services, the Board should be able to provide an opinion. In any event, the Commission retains the possibility to issue its own opinions following the opinions drawn up by the Board.

Added:Recital 20: (20) Media integrity can be supported by promoting and ensuring journalistic standards across the Union and by promoting and ensuring the editorial independence of media service providers, in particular through internal safeguards, in order to guarantee that information is trustworthy and that any ideological orientation is limited by the absolute requirement to report the news and opinions truthfully and ethically. Media service providers should adopt measures to guarantee the freedom of editors and editors-in-chief to take editorial decisions, on the basis of the established editorial line, in the course of their professional activity. Those measures should not only reinforce the safeguards for freedom of the media but also freedom within the media. The objective to shield editors and editors-in-chief from undue interference in their decisions taken on specific pieces of content as part of their everyday work contributes to ensuring a level playing field in the internal market for media services and the quality of such services. That objective is also in conformity with the fundamental right to receive and impart information under Article 11 of the Charter and with Resolution 1003 (1993) of the Council of Europe. In view of these considerations, media service providers should also ensure transparency and disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest to their service recipients and ensure that their owners, publishers and management follow the highest professional s…

Removed:Recital 44: (44) In order to ensure pluralistic media markets, Member States should establish a number of relevant criteria. In particular, impact on media pluralism should be considered, including notably the effect on the formation of public opinion, taking into account of the online environment. That also includes the necessity to consider whether other media outlets, providing different and alternative content, would still coexist in the given market(s) after the media market concentration in question. As a result, it might be necessary to permit mergers only subject to supplementary diversity-protection requirements. Additionally, the examination of potential risks of undue interference by the prospective owner, management or governance structure in the individual editorial decisions of the acquired or merged entity should be taken into account. The existing or envisaged internal safeguards aimed at preserving independence of the individual editorial decisions within the media undertakings involved should therefore be taken into account. In assessing the potential impacts, the effects of the concentration in question on the economic sustainability of the entity or entities subject to the concentration should also be considered and whether, in the absence of the concentration, they would be economically sustainable, in the sense that they would be able in the medium term to continue to provide and further develop financially viable, adequately resourced and technologically adapted qu…

Added:Recital 21: (21) Media service providers should adopt internal safeguards in line with their structures and needs. The Recommendation that accompanies this Regulation50 provides a catalogue of voluntary internal safeguards that could be considered within media companies in this regard. This Regulation should not be construed to the effect of depriving the owners of private media service providers of their prerogative to decide on the composition of their editorial teams or on their editorial line, to set strategic or general goals and to foster the growth and financial viability of their undertakings. However, this Regulation should also not be construed as meaning that the owner or corporate manager of a media service provider can unduly interfere with the work of its editors and editors-in-chief operating in accordance with its established editorial line by, for example, compelling them to add or remove content before it is made available to the public. In this respect, this Regulation recognises that the goal of ensuring and fostering editorial independence needs to be reconciled with the legitimate rights and interests of private media owners.

Removed:Recital 45: (45) Audience measurement has a direct impact on the allocation and the prices of advertising, which represents a key revenue source for the media sector. It is a crucial tool to evaluate the performance of media content and understand the preferences of audiences in order to plan the future production of content. Accordingly, media market players, in particular media service providers and advertisers, should be able to rely on objective audience data stemming from transparent, unbiased and verifiable audience measurement solutions. However, certain new players that have emerged in the media ecosystem, such as very large online platforms, provide their own measurement services without making available information on their methodologies. This could result in information asymmetries among media market players and in potential market distortions, to the detriment of equality of opportunities for media service providers in the market.

Added:Recital 22: (22) Independent national regulatory authorities or bodies are key for the proper application of media law across the Union. National regulatory authorities or bodies referred to in Article 30 of Directive 2010/13/EU are best placed to ensure the correct application of the requirements related to regulatory cooperation and a well-functioning market for media services, envisaged in Chapter III of this Regulation. In order to ensure a consistent application of this Regulation and other Union media law, it is necessary that national regulatory authorities or bodies hold consultations with representatives of media service providers, civil society organisations, media experts, representatives of academia, trade union associations and associations of journalists. In addition, it is necessary to set up an independent advisory body at Union level gathering such authorities or bodies and coordinating their actions. The European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA), established by Directive 2010/13/EU, has been essential in promoting the consistent implementation of that Directive. The European Board for Media Services (‘the Board’) should therefore build on ERGA and replace it. This requires a targeted amendment of Directive 2010/13/EU to delete its Article 30b, which establishes ERGA, and to replace references to ERGA and its tasks as a consequence. The amendment of Directive 2010/13/EU by this Regulation is justified in this case as it is limited to a provision whi…

Removed:Recital 49: (49) In order to ensure undistorted competition between media service providers and to avoid the risk of covert subsidies and of undue political influence on the media, it is necessary to establish common requirements of transparency, objectivity, proportionality and non-discrimination in the allocation of state advertising and of state resources to media service providers for the purpose of purchasing goods or services from them other than state advertising, including the requirement to publish information on the beneficiaries of state advertising expenditure and the amounts spent. It is important that the Union and the Member States make the necessary information related to state advertising publicly accessible in an electronic format that is easy to view, access and download, in compliance with Union and national rules on commercial confidentiality. This Regulation shall not affect the application of the State aid rules, which are applied on a case-by-case basis.

Added:Recital 23: (23) The Board should bring together senior representatives of the national regulatory authorities or bodies established in accordance with the requirements set out in Article 30 of Directive 2010/13/EU. In cases where Member States have several relevant regulatory authorities or bodies, including at regional level, a joint representative should be chosen through appropriate procedures and the voting right should remain limited to one representative per Member State. This should not affect the possibility for the other national regulatory authorities or bodies or, where applicable, a common representative of self-regulatory or co-regulatory mechanisms to participate, as appropriate, in the meetings of the Board. The Board and the Expert Group should also have the possibility to invite to attend its meetings, external experts on a case-by-case basis. The Board should also have the possibility, in agreement with the Commission, to designate permanent observers to attend its meetings, including in particular regulatory authorities or bodies from candidate countries, potential candidate countries, EEA countries, or ad hoc delegates from other competent national authorities. Due to the sensitivity of the media sector and following the practice of ERGA decisions in accordance with its rules of procedure, the Board should adopt its decisions on the basis of a two-thirds majority of of its members with voting rights. The Board's rules of procedure should specify the role and tasks of…

Removed:Recital 50: (50) Risks to the functioning and resilience of the internal media market should be regularly monitored as part of the efforts to improve the functioning of the internal market for media services. Such monitoring should aim at providing detailed data and qualitative assessments on the resilience of the internal market for media services, including as regards the degree of concentration of the market at national and regional level and risks of foreign information manipulation and interference. It should be conducted independently, on the basis of a robust list of key performance indicators, developed and regularly updated by the Commission, in consultation with the Board. Given the rapidly evolving nature of risks and technological developments in the internal media market, the monitoring should include forward-looking exercises such as stress tests to assess the prospective resilience of the internal media market, to alert about vulnerabilities around media pluralism, and to help efforts to improve governance, data quality and risk management. In particular, the level of cross-border activity and investment, regulatory cooperation and convergence in media regulation, obstacles to the provision of media services, including in a digital environment, as well as transparency and fairness of allocation of economic resources in the internal media market should be covered by the monitoring. It should also consider broader trends in the internal media market. In order to ensure the h…

Added:Recital 23 a (new): (23a) The Board will need to address, in accordance with this Regulation, issues beyond the remit of the ERGA, in particular issues related to press publications, radio, online media. It is thus necessary to establish an Expert Group, consisting of experts, media representatives of self-regulatory or co-regulatory organisations such as journalistic associations, media or press councils, and representatives of civil society, to advise and consult the Board on the implementation of this Regulation. The composition of the Expert Group should be determined by the Board’s rules of procedure and reflect the existing self-regulatory media frameworks from each Member State and different sectoral and geographic areas within the Member States. In addition to representatives from the Member States, the Expert Group should consist of widely recognised and established European organisations representing diverse interests from the media sector. The Expert Group should be positioned within the structure of the Board. The Expert Group should advise the Board on the performance of its tasks. The Expert Group should have the necessary autonomy to act independently. The Expert Group should be able to invite, on its own initiative, experts and media representatives, whether in a structured dialogue or otherwise, to help it assess the application of this Regulation and to contribute to its work based on its needs. The Expert Group should be empowered to issue recommendations and draw the Board’s …

Removed:Article 1 – paragraph 1: 1. This Regulation lays down common rules for the proper functioning of the internal market for media services, including the establishment of the European Board for Media Services.

Added:Recital 24: (24) Without prejudice to the powers granted to the Commission by the Treaties, it is essential that the Commission and the Board work and cooperate closely. Nevertheless, the Board’s work should be independent from the Commission and from any political or economic influence. The Board should actively support the Commission in its tasks of ensuring the consistent application of this Regulation and of the national rules implementing Directive 2010/13/EU. For that purpose, the Board should in particular advise and assist the Commission on regulatory, technical or practical aspects pertinent to the application of Union law, promote cooperation and the effective exchange of information, experience and best practices, draw up opinions and carry out any other tasks on its own initiative or at the request of the Commission or the European Parliament in the cases envisaged by this Regulation. In order to effectively and independently fulfil its tasks, the Board should be able to rely on the expertise and human resources of an independent secretariat. The secretariat should act only on the Board's instructions. The secretariat should be provided with sufficient budgetary and human resources. The secretariat should provide substantive, administrative and organisational support to the Board, and help the Board in carrying out its tasks.

Removed:Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new): 1a. This Regulation also lays down, to the extent necessary for the common rules for the proper functioning of the internal market for media services, common basic principles to serve as minimum standards for the safe and unhindered operation of media services and the activities of journalists, while ensuring the independence and plurality of the media.

Added:Recital 24 a (new): (24a) It is important that the Board issue, in cooperation with the national regulatory authorities or bodies and taking into account existing national law, guidelines on the definition of media services of general interest and on the criteria, assessment framework and process for determining their scope. It is important that those guidelines be consistent with Union values and established general interest objectives such as media pluralism, freedom of expression, access to reliable information, social cohesion and cultural diversity.

Removed:Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new): (ba) Directive 2010/13/EU, with the exception of the amendments made by Article 27 of this Regulation;

Added:Recital 25: (25) Regulatory cooperation between independent media regulatory authorities or bodies is essential to make the internal market for media services function properly. However, Directive 2010/13/EU does not provide for a structured cooperation framework for national regulatory authorities or bodies. Since the revision of the EU framework for audiovisual media services by Directive 2018/1808/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council52 , which extended its scope to video-sharing platforms, there has been an ever-increasing need for close cooperation among national regulatory authorities or bodies, in particular to resolve cross-border cases. Such a need is also justified in view of the new challenges in the EU media environment that this Regulation seeks to address, including by entrusting national regulatory authorities or bodies with new tasks. Therefore, the Board, in consultation with the Commission, should also be able to establish cooperation arrangements with competent Union bodies, offices, agencies and advisory groups, with competent authorities of third countries and with international organisations.

Removed:Article 1 – paragraph 3: 3. This Regulation shall not affect the possibility for Member States to adopt more detailed or strict rules in the fields covered by Chapter II, Section 5 of Chapter III and Article 24, provided that those rules comply with Union law.

Added:Recital 26: (26) In 2020, the ERGA adopted a Memorandum of Understanding consisting of a voluntary framework for cooperation to strengthen the cross-border enforcement of media rules on audiovisual media services and video-sharing platform services. Building on that voluntary framework and in order to ensure the comprehensive and effective enforcement of Union measures concerning media law, to prevent possible circumvention of the applicable rules by rogue media service providers and to avoid additional barriers to the provision of media services in the internal market, it is essential that national regulatory authorities or bodies cooperate effectively and efficiently with one another within the established legal framework.

Removed:Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3: (3) ‘public service media provider’ means a media service provider which is entrusted with a public service mission under national law and receives national public funding for the fulfilment of such a mission;

Added:Recital 27: (27) Due to the pan-European nature of video-sharing platforms, national regulatory authorities or bodies need to have a dedicated tool to protect users of video-sharing platform services from certain harmful content, including commercial communications. In particular, and without prejudice to the country-of-origin principle, a mechanism is needed to allow any relevant national regulatory authority or body to request its peers to take necessary and proportionate actions to ensure enforcement of obligations under this Article by video-sharing platform providers. In case the use of such mechanism does not lead to an amicable solution, the freedom to provide information society services from another Member State can only be restricted if the conditions set out in Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council53 are met and following the procedure set out therein.

Removed:Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new): (3a) ‘very large online platform’ means an online platform or online search engine which has a number of average monthly active recipients of the service in the Union equal to or higher than 45 million, and which is designated as a very large online platform or a very large online search engine pursuant to Article 33(4) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a. / 1a Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1).

Added:Recital 28: (28) Ensuring a consistent and effective implementation of this Regulation and Directive 2010/13/EU is essential. For this purpose, and to contribute to ensuring a convergent implementation of EU media law, the Commission should issue guidelines on matters covered by both this Regulation and Directive 2010/13/EU when needed. When deciding to issue guidelines, the Commission should consider in particular regulatory issues affecting a significant number of Member States or those with a cross-border element. This is the case in particular for national measures taken under Article 7a of Directive 2010/13/EU on the appropriate prominence of audiovisual media services of general interest. In view of the abundance of information and the increasing use of digital means to access the media, it is important to ensure prominence for content of general interest, in order to help achieving a level playing field in the internal market and compliance with the fundamental right to receive information under Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union. Given the possible impact of the national measures taken under Article 7a on the functioning of the internal media market, guidelines by the Commission would be important to achieve legal certainty in this field. Such guidelines should be drafted with the support of the Board and should respect the Member States’ competence in cultural matters with a view to promoting media pluralism, be principle-based and be without prejudice …

Removed:Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9: (9) ‘editorial responsibility’ means the exercise of effective control both over the selection of the programmes or the content of press publications and over the the organisation of programmes or such content, for the purposes of the provision of a media service, regardless of the existence of liability under national law for the service provided;

Added:Recital 28 a (new): (28a) Minimum harmonisation of rules regarding restrictions on media ownership across the European Union is one of the fundamental ways of guaranteeing a fair plurality of views, of protecting fair competition among media services providers within the European media market and of upholding the right of consumers to receive a variety of diverse sources of information and diverse opinions in an impartial and pluralistic manner. For that reason, certain politically exposed persons, as defined in Article 3, point (9), of Directive (EU) 2015/849, such as heads of State, heads of government and ministers, should, after being appointed as such, terminate their business relationship with a media service provider.

Removed:Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 13: (13) ‘media market concentration’ means a concentration as defined in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 involving at least one media service provider at least one provider of very large online platform or at least one provider of very large online search engine, and which has a significant impact on the structure and pluralism of the media market;

Added:Recital 29: (29) In order to ensure a level playing field in the provision of diverse audiovisual media services in the face of technological developments in the internal market, it is necessary to find common harmonised European standards for devices controlling or managing access to and use of audiovisual media services, including remote controls, or devices carrying digital signals conveying the audiovisual content from source to destination. In this context, it is important to avoid diverging technical standards creating barriers and additional costs for the industry and consumers while encouraging solutions to implement existing obligations concerning audiovisual media services.

Removed:Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 14: (14) ‘audience measurement’ means the activity of collecting, interpreting or otherwise processing data about the number and characteristics of users of media services or of users of online platforms that provide media services for the purposes of decisions regarding advertising allocation or prices or the related buying, planning, production, selling or distribution of content;

Added:Recital 30: (30) Regulatory authorities or bodies referred to in Article 30 of Directive 2010/13/EU have specific practical expertise that allows them to effectively balance the interests of the providers and recipients of media services while ensuring the respect for the freedom of expression and safeguarding and promoting media pluralism. This is key in particular when it comes to protecting the internal market from media services from outside the Union, irrespective of the means by which they are distributed or accessed, that target or reach audiences in the Union where, inter alia in view of the control that may be exercised by third countries over them, they contain a public provocation to commit a terrorist offence as set out in Directive (EU) 2017/541 or constitute a serious and grave risk of prejudice to public security and to the safeguarding of national security and defence. Media service providers established outside the Union and wishing to benefit from the free movement of media services for their media offerings, as one of the advantages of the internal market of the Union, should be subject to the same conditions and requirements as media service providers established within the Union. In this regard, the coordination between national regulatory authorities or bodies to face together possible public security and defence threats stemming from such media services needs to be strengthened and given a legal framework to ensure the effectiveness and possible coordination of the…

Removed:Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 15: (15) ‘State advertising’ means the placement, publication or dissemination, in any media service or online platform that provides media services, of a promotional or self-promotional message, normally in return for payment or for any other consideration, by, for or on behalf of any public authority, such as Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, national, federal or regional governments, regulatory authorities or bodies as well as state-owned enterprises or other state-controlled entities, where the State is involved in the day-to-day business of such enterprises or entities or has an influence on their advertising strategies or spending on and placement of such messages, at the national or regional level, or any local government of a territorial entity of more than 1 million inhabitants;

Added:Recital 31: (31) Very large online platforms act for many users as a gateway for access to media services. Media service providers who exercise editorial responsibility over their content play a key role in the distribution of and access to information and in the exercise of freedom of information online. When exercising such editorial responsibility, they are expected to act diligently and provide information that is trustworthy and respectful of fundamental rights, in line with the regulatory requirements and co-regulatory or self-regulatory mechanisms they are subject to in the Member States. At the same time, providers of very large online platforms should also take due account of users’ right to freedom of expression and information, media freedom and media pluralism. Providers of very large online platforms should contribute in an appropriate manner to the plurality of the media by respecting the freedom of media service providers to exercise their activities without restrictions. Therefore, also in view of users’ freedom of information, where providers of very large online platforms consider that content provided by such media service providers is incompatible with their terms and conditions, while it is not contributing to a systemic risk referred to in Article 34 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, they should duly respect media freedom and media pluralism, and provide, as early as possible, the necessary explanations to media service providers as a business user, in the statement of …

Removed:Article 3 – paragraph 1: Member States shall ensure, in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’) and with the other fundamental rights set out therein, that Union citizens or natural persons who benefit from rights conferred upon them by Union law and legal persons established in the Union benefit from a plurality of news and current affairs content produced by media service providers with editorial independence, for the purposes of free and democratic public discourse.

Added:Recital 32: (32) It is furthermore justified, in view of an expected positive impact on freedom to provide services and freedom of expression, that where media service providers comply with certain regulatory or self-regulatory standards, their complaints and, where applicable, complaints filed by their representative bodies in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 against decisions of providers of very large online platforms are treated with priority and, in any event, no later than 24 hours after their submission.

Removed:Article 4 – paragraph 1: 1. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that media service providers can exercise their economic activities in the internal market without restrictions other than those that are in compliance with Union law.

Added:Recital 33: (33) To this end, providers of very large online platforms should provide a functionality on their online interface to enable media service providers to declare that they meet certain requirements, while at the same time retaining the possibility for such self-declaration to be confirmed, for example by the national regulatory authorities or bodies or the body of the self- or co-regulatory mechanism, where they consider that these conditions are not met. If confirmed in that manner, media service providers should be deemed to be recognised media service providers. It should also be possible to refer the matter to the Board, which should be able to issue a recommendation on such matters. Providers of very large online platforms may rely on information regarding compliance with these requirements, such as the machine-readable standard of the Journalism Trust Initiative, developed under the aegis of the European Committee for Standardisation, or other relevant codes of conduct. That mechanism should not deter very large online platforms from signing up to voluntary commitment No 22 of the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation or from taking measures to foster the visibility, discoverability and prominence of media services in their recommendation systems provided by media service providers that demonstrably comply with professional and ethical standards for journalism. Certification to ISO standards for professional and ethical journalism, such as the Journalism Trust Initiative…

Removed:Article 4 – paragraph 3: 3. Without prejudice and in addition to the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed to each natural and legal person, Member States shall designate a structurally and functionally independent authority or body to handle complaints lodged by media service providers or, if applicable, their family members, their employees or their family members, regarding breaches of paragraph 2, points (b) and (c). Media service providers shall have the right to request that authority or body to issue, within three months of the request, an opinion regarding compliance with paragraph 2, points (b) and (c).

Added:Recital 34: (34) This Regulation recognises the importance of co-regulatory and self-regulatory mechanisms that are legally recognised in the relevant media sector in one or more Member States in the context of the provision of media services on very large online platforms. They represent a type of voluntary initiatives, for instance in a form of codes of conduct, which enable media service providers or their representatives to adopt common guidelines, including on ethical standards, correction of errors or complaint handling, amongst themselves and for themselves. Robust, inclusive and widely-accepted media co-regulation and self-regulation represents an effective guarantee of quality and professionalism of media services and is key for safeguarding editorial integrity.

Removed:Article 5 – paragraph 1: 1. Where Member States decide, within their sole competence as laid down in Protocol No 29 on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States, annexed to the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (the ‘Amsterdam Protocol’), to provide for the funding of public service media and to confer, define and organise the public service remit, they shall ensure that public service media providers provide independently and in an impartial manner a plurality of information and opinions to their audiences, in accordance with their public service mission.

Added:Recital 35: (35) Providers of very large online platforms should engage with media service providers that respect standards of credibility and transparency and that consider that restrictions on their content are frequently imposed by providers of very large online platforms without sufficient grounds, in order to find an amicable solution for terminating any unjustified restrictions and avoiding them in the future. Providers of very large online platforms should engage in such exchanges in good faith, paying particular attention to safeguarding media freedom and freedom of information. Where the provider of a very large online platform and a media service provider fail to find an amicable solution, the media service provider should be able to lodge a complaint before a certified out-of-court dispute settlement body in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/2065.

Removed:Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1: Member States shall ensure that the head of management and the members of the governing board of public service media providers are appointed through a transparent, open and non-discriminatory procedure and on the basis of transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria laid down in advance by national law.

Added:Recital 35 a (new): (35a) Within the meaning of this regulation, obligations for restrictions of content should not prevent very large online platforms from fighting disinformation or protecting minors. In this context, obligations should not apply in instances of down-ranking, labelling of content or diluting its visibility (such as blurring of images) when they are in line with the code of practice on disinformation and other relevant Union law. At the same time, it should be recognised that services acting in a not-for-profit purpose capacity, such as online encyclopaedias as well as educational and scientific repositories, should not be considered very large online platforms for the purpose of Article 17.

Removed:Article 5 – paragraph 3: 3. Member States shall ensure that public service media providers have predictable and stable financial resources for the fulfilment of their public service mission and to meet the objectives thereof. Those resources and the mechanism by which they are allocated shall be such that editorial independence is safeguarded.

Added:Recital 36: (36) Building on the useful role played by ERGA in monitoring compliance by the signatories of EU Code of Practice on Disinformation, the Board, with the involvement of the Expert Group, should, at least on a yearly basis, organise a structured dialogue between providers of very large online platforms, providers of very large search engines, representatives of media service providers and representatives of civil society, including from fact-checking organisations, to foster access to diverse offers of independent media on very large online platforms and very large search engines, to discuss experience and best practices related to the application of the relevant provisions of this Regulation, to monitor compliance with self-regulatory initiatives aimed at protecting society from harmful content, including those aimed at countering disinformation, and to assess the possible negative effects that such initiatives or content moderation policies might have on media freedom and media pluralism. The Commission may, where relevant, examine the reports on the results of such structured dialogues when assessing systemic and emerging issues across the Union under Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 and may ask the Board and the Expert Group to support it to this effect.

Removed:Article 5 – paragraph 4: 4. Member States shall put in place mechanisms to monitor the application of paragraphs 1 to 3.

Added:Recital 37: (37) Users of audio and audiovisual media services should be able to effectively choose the audio and audiovisual content they want to listen to or watch according to their preferences. Their freedom in this area may however be constrained by commercial practices in the media sector, namely agreements for content prioritisation between manufacturers of devices or providers of user interfaces controlling or managing access to and use of audio and audiovisual media services, such as connected televisions or car audio systems, and media service providers. Prioritisation can be implemented, for example, on the home screen of a device, through hardware, including remote controls, or software shortcuts, applications and search areas, which have implications on the users’ behaviour, who may be unduly incentivised to choose certain audio or audiovisual media offers over others. Users of audio or audiovisual media services should have the possibility to change, in a simple and user-friendly manner, the settings and default layout, including the configuration of audiovisual media services or of applications allowing users to access such services, on a user interface or on devices controlling and managing access to, and use of, audiovisual media services, without prejudice to measures to ensure the appropriate prominence of audiovisual media services of general interest, in particular measures implementing Article 7a and 7 b of Directive 2010/13/EU, taken in the pursuit of legitimate pu…

Removed:Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory sentence: 1. Without prejudice to Article 5 of Directive 2010/13/EU, media service providers providing news and current affairs content shall make easily and directly accessible to the recipients of their services the following information:

Added:Recital 37 a (new): (37a) Users of media services increasingly face difficulties in identifying who bears the editorial responsibility for the media services they use, in particular when they access them through connected devices, user interfaces or online platforms. Failure to clearly indicate editorial responsibility for media content or services, for example by incorrectly attributing or removing logos, trademarks or other characteristic traits, deprives users of media services of the ability to understand and assess the information they receive. Users of media services should therefore be able to easily identify the media service provider bearing the editorial responsibility for any given media service on all devices and user interfaces controlling or managing access to and use of media services.