Skip to content
DRAFT OPINION (COM(2022)0457 – C90309/2022 – 2022/0277(COD))

On the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market (European Media Freedom Act) and amending Directive 2010/13/EU

IMCO-PA-742456

Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection · Rapporteur: Geoffroy Didier

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX
✦ In shortFull text
✦ In short · AI summary of this text, generated 26 Sept 2026

Written by a language model from the full text only; every figure comes from the text. The paragraph links open the paragraph a statement rests on — check the text itself before relying on it.

The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection's draft opinion proposes amendments to the proposed European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), a regulation on a common framework for media services in the internal market. It asks to separate press and audiovisual rules, to give publishers and editorial managers responsibility for editorial decisions, and to encourage newsrooms to adopt ethical charters. It proposes replacing the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) with a Board supported by an independent bureau, and to limit the Board's competence to audiovisual media services. It would extend obligations to very large online platforms and very large search engines on content moderation, audience measurement, state funding transparency and market concentrations.

Committee position. The rapporteur proposes amendments to the Commission's proposal to separate press and audiovisual rules, strengthen publisher and editorial manager responsibility, replace ERGA with a Board limited to audiovisual media, and extend obligations to very large online platforms and search engines.

Key points

  1. The draft opinion calls on the Committee on Culture and Education to take into account amendments that separate press and audiovisual sectors and adapt the text to national press regulation.
  2. It proposes that editorial freedom and responsibility rest with the publisher and editorial managers, and that newsrooms adopt an ethical charter negotiated between publisher and journalists.
  3. It would replace ERGA with a European Board for Media Services, supported by an independent bureau, and limit the Board's competence to audiovisual media services.
  4. It would require Member States to ensure national regulatory authorities have adequate financial, human and technical resources and organisational autonomy.
  5. It would extend rules on content moderation, complaints and dialogue to very large online platforms and very large search engines, including a 48-hour reply period before suspension.
  6. It would require providers of very large online platforms and very large search engines to give the Board access to information and to participate in a structured dialogue.
  7. It would require audience measurement systems to be transparent, comparable and verifiable, with independent third parties or self-regulatory bodies carrying out measurement.
  8. It would require public authorities to publish yearly information on state funding allocated to media service providers and to allocate it in a non-discriminatory way.
  9. It would require Member States to assess market concentrations with a significant impact on media pluralism, including concentrations involving very large online platforms or search engines.
  10. It would give the Board power to issue opinions on national measures affecting the internal market and on market concentrations, on its own initiative or at the Commission's request.
  11. It would require Member States to ensure public service media providers have adequate and stable funding and operate independently.
  12. It would give users the right to change default settings on devices and user interfaces and to identify the media service provider responsible for content.

Who is affected

  • Media service providers, including press and audiovisual, would face new rules on editorial independence, ownership transparency and state funding.
  • Very large online platforms and very large search engines would have new obligations on content moderation, complaints and audience measurement.
  • National regulatory authorities would gain new tasks and need adequate resources and independence.
  • Public service media providers would need to provide plural information and receive stable funding.
  • Users of media services would gain rights to change default settings and identify the media service provider.

Figures and deadlines

  • 48 hours for a media service provider to reply to a statement of reasons before content suspension.
  • 14 calendar days for the Board to issue an opinion on a referral from national authorities.
  • 30 calendar days for a requested national authority to inform about actions taken or planned.
  • Two-thirds majority for Board decisions and for electing the Chair and Vice-Chairs.
  • Two-year term of office for the Chair and Vice-Chairs of the Board.
  • 10% of capital held by legal or natural persons to be disclosed by media service providers.
  • 1 million inhabitants threshold for local governments to publish state funding information.
  • One year after entry into application for the Commission to assess implementation of Article 7.