Italian Transposition of Press Publishers’ Right May Be Compatible with EU Law, Though with Caveats, Says Grand Chamber

Key Takeaways

• Italian press right may comply with EU law if rights stay preventive
• Compensation must link to actual use by information‑society service providers
• AGCOM sets fair compensation only if publishers and ISSPs fail to agree
• Court stresses exclusive rights cannot be reduced to mere remuneration entitlements
• Ruling influences AI training rules and future EU member‑state implementations

Pulse Analysis

The EU’s Digital Single Market (DSM) Directive introduced a novel press publishers’ right aimed at ensuring fair remuneration for online uses of news content. Italy responded by embedding Article 43‑bis into its Copyright Act, granting the communications regulator AGCOM authority to determine compensation when negotiations stall. This approach was closely watched because it attempts to reconcile the EU’s harmonised framework with national enforcement tools, offering a template for other jurisdictions grappling with the balance between press sustainability and platform innovation.

In its Grand Chamber judgment, the Court drew a clear line between preventive exclusive rights and mere financial claims. It affirmed that Article 15(1) creates a prohibition right—publishers can block unauthorized uses—rather than an automatic payment right. Consequently, any national scheme, including Italy’s, must preserve the ability to deny use, not just levy fees. The decision also limits the scope of obligations to ISSPs that truly exploit press material, meaning platforms that merely host user‑generated content without direct use may escape the compensation regime. This nuance will force digital services to reassess content‑identification practices and licensing negotiations.

Beyond the immediate press sector, the ruling reverberates through the emerging AI debate. Training large language models often involves ingesting vast news corpora, and the Court’s insistence that exclusive rights remain exclusive undermines arguments that AI developers can rely on a simple remuneration model without securing consent. EU member states will likely revisit their own transpositions to ensure compliance, and litigants can expect a wave of cases testing the boundaries of ‘use’ and ‘fair compensation’ across the digital economy.