Otago Daily Times

Forcing tech giants to the table

Australia plans to make Facebook and Google pay for news. Rob Nicholls explains how it will work.

- Rob Nicholls is an associate professor of business law and director of the UNSW Business School Cybersecur­ity and Data Governance Research Network in Sydney.

THE Australian Competitio­n and Consumer Commission has released its draft news media bargaining code, announced last week by

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg.

The draft code allows commercial news businesses to bargain — individual­ly or collective­ly — with Google and Facebook, in order to be paid for news the tech giants publish on their services.

According to ACCC chairman Rod Sims, the code aims to address the bargaining power imbalance between news publishers and major digital platforms, to bring about fair payment for news.

As Frydenberg said: ‘‘We want Google and Facebook to continue to provide these services to the Australian community, which are so much loved and used by Australian­s. But we want it to be on our terms.’’

The ACCC has previously found Google and Facebook’s failure to pay for news content is eating into the advertisin­g revenues which fund journalism.

The code is set out as exposure draft legislatio­n and an explanator­y memorandum.

These set out the rules for who can bargain. To be eligible, a news business must have employed journalist­s, earn more than $A150,000 ($NZ162,000) per year in revenue and be registered with the Australian Communicat­ions and Media Authority (ACMA).

And they must provide ‘‘core news’’, defined as: ‘‘journalism on publicly significan­t issues, journalism that engages Australian­s in public debate and informs democratic decisionma­king, and journalism relating to community and local events.’’

The code does not specify how much news businesses should be paid.

Instead, it provides a negotiatin­g process in which Google and Facebook must take part. The negotiatin­g phase lasts three months and includes at least one day of mediation.

If there is no agreement at the end, the process moves to compulsory arbitratio­n (by an ACMAappoin­ted panel) for which both parties pay.

The arbitratio­n panel will then select one of the final offers in a process sometimes called ‘‘baseball determinat­ion’’. Their decision will be binding.

The range of Facebook services subject to arbitratio­n includes Facebook News Feed, Instagram and the Facebook News Tab. The Google services are Google Search, Google News and Google Discover.

The ACCC will also be able to make submission­s in the arbitratio­n process (which the arbitrator can decide to consider or not). Under limited and unlikely circumstan­ces, the arbitrator may adjust the more reasonable of the final two offers.

The draft code introduces a series of ‘‘minimum standards’’ for digital platforms to meet in their dealings with news businesses.

These include a requiremen­t for Google and Facebook to give 28 days’ notice of any algorithmi­c change that will affect either referral traffic to news or the ranking of news behind paywalls.

This gives news businesses the opportunit­y to adapt their business models to ensure their content retains its prominence. More importantl­y, it means their negotiated revenue will not drop. It may also help in decisions about what content stays behind paywalls.

There will be an obligation on Google and Facebook to give businesses clear informatio­n about the nature and availabili­ty of user data collected through users’ interactio­ns with the news. This does not mean Google or Facebook must share the data itself — only that news businesses will be informed of what kind of data is being collected.

There are also obligation­s on the tech giants to publish proposals which appropriat­ely recognise the media business’ original news on their platforms and to provide those businesses with flexible tools for user comment moderation.

In addition, Google and Facebook must allow news businesses to prevent their news from being included on any individual platform service. For instance, they may choose for an article to appear on Google Search but not Google News.

News businesses will be able to moderate comments more easily. This is important considerin­g they can be sued for comments published on their posts via platforms such as Facebook.

The draft code will not result in a $A600 million payday for news businesses, as Nine’s chairman proposed in May. However, the negotiatio­n and arbitratio­n process does provide certainty of a positive commercial outcome for news providers relying on advertisin­g.

There will also be more work required for Google and

Facebook to give notice of algorithmi­c changes, which are managed in the United States. This obligation will mean adjustment­s to both the tech giants’ business models.

Google has already taken steps down this path by successful­ly negotiatin­g revenue sharing with some Australian news businesses. In effect, it has created a benchmark for its position in the new negotiatio­n framework.

Meanwhile, Facebook has argued ‘‘news does not drive significan­t longterm commercial value’’ for it. However, it said it was committed to following ‘‘sensible regulatory frameworks for digital news’’.

A breach of the code by Facebook or Google could have a few potential outcomes. The first is an infringeme­nt notice which has a penalty of $A133,200 for each breach.

If the ACCC takes one of the tech giants to court, the maximum penalty is the higher of

$A10 million, 10% of the digital platform’s turnover in Australia in the past 12 months, or three times the benefit obtained by the tech giant as a result of the breach (if this can be calculated).

The ACCC has previously had success against franchiser­s for breaches of the mandatory Franchisin­g Code. It is likely to be just as vigilant in policing the news media bargaining code. — theconvers­ation.com

❛ The code does not specify how much news businesses should be paid. Instead, it provides a negotiatin­g process in

which Google and Facebook must take part

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand