Australia decided that platforms should pay news organisations for the content they surface. The principle is easy to state and rooted in copyright. The implementation reveals how hard it is to design a scheme that helps the journalism most in need of help.
How it worked before
Under the system still followed in most of the world, news organisations post or publish content with hyperlinks to their own sites on platforms such as Facebook and Google, whose algorithms determine which users see it. When users click through, the media organisation earns revenue from advertisements on its own platform.
The platforms’ argument is that they expand reach and visibility, allowing users to discover news rather than delivering it to them.
The drawbacks from the publishers’ side are real. There is heavy reliance on a proprietary, changing algorithm with no transparency about how it works. And many users read the headline on the platform and never click through, depriving the publisher of the revenue entirely.
What the Code does
Passed in February 2021, the News Media Bargaining Code encourages news organisations and platforms to enter content licensing and distribution agreements for showing links in feeds and search results. Where they cannot agree, an independent arbitrator sets the price, effective for 12 months, after which negotiation or arbitration begins again.
A further requirement: platforms must inform news organisations of algorithm changes where those changes materially affect how news items are identified, processed and disseminated.
The Code produced deals — Google and Facebook signed with a number of Australian organisations.
The threshold problem
The Code applies only to news organisations earning more than AUD 150,000 per year, among other criteria.
The consequence is the sharpest criticism of the scheme. Smaller organisations and independent investigative journalists are excluded from the revenue it generates — the stakeholders most likely to benefit are the ones left out. And smaller organisations lack the time and money to negotiate or arbitrate every twelve months.
So the model benefits entrenched media organisations that have already reached scale, and is unlikely to assist smaller independent outlets. The platforms separately criticised the algorithm notification requirement as not technically feasible.
A copyright problem, and a better answer
Stripped of politics, this is a media rights question. News content has always been paid for — through subscriptions, advertising, or both — and as consumption habits evolve, legislation follows. Every media industry from music to video games has developed its own licensing and monetisation practices; the news industry has arguably been the slowest.
A more suitable solution may have been a news media copyright society or equivalent — collective licensing of the kind music has used for a century. That would let smaller organisations share in the revenue rather than being excluded by a threshold, and would avoid requiring every publisher to negotiate individually every year.
The wider picture
The Australian Code sits in a broader conversation about regulating large platforms. The EU’s Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market was an earlier attempt, including provisions directing platforms to pay news organisations for links to their content — under which French publishers agreed a framework with Google.
When the regulations were first proposed, Google and Facebook threatened to withdraw from Australia, and Facebook briefly suspended news content for Australian users, with amendments following consultation. Microsoft welcomed the regulations, offering to comply with Bing — a cynic would note that Bing’s Australian market share was negligible, and that Microsoft would have been glad to fill any vacuum Google left.
What happened since. The pattern repeated. Canada’s Online News Act produced the same standoff, with Meta blocking news for Canadian users rather than pay. And in 2024 Meta declined to renew its Australian deals as they expired. The lesson is that a scheme requiring platforms to pay for content they can simply stop carrying has a structural weakness — the platform’s ability to walk away is itself leverage, and news publishers discovered that traffic loss hurts them more than the payments helped.
What it means for India
The platforms’ initial response in Australia suggests how they may react to similar efforts in India, where the conversation about regulating large platforms has developed alongside disputes between the government and social media companies. Indian publishers have pressed for a comparable framework, and governments everywhere have been watching how the Australian model performs.
The takeaways
- Negotiate or arbitrate, annually — with algorithm change notification.
- The revenue threshold excludes independent and small publishers.
- Collective licensing would spread the benefit more evenly than bilateral deals.
- Platforms can withdraw — Meta blocked news in Canada and exited the Australian deals.
Frequently asked questions
What does Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code require? That platforms negotiate payment with news organisations for showing links to their content, with an independent arbitrator setting the price if negotiations fail.
Why is the Code criticised? Its revenue threshold excludes smaller organisations and independent journalists, and annual renegotiation is impractical for outlets without legal resources.
How did the platforms respond? Google and Facebook threatened to withdraw, Facebook briefly suspended news for Australian users, and Meta later declined to renew its deals.
Is there a comparable law in Europe? Yes — the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market includes provisions requiring platforms to pay news organisations for use of their content.