EMFA: Media Freedom Act & Journalist Protection | IT-Medienrecht

Discover how the EMFA (European Media Freedom Act) strengthens media independence & journalist protection in the EU. Get insights on Regulation (EU)…

The European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) at a Glance: New Standards for Media Freedom and Pluralism

In May 2024, the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) was published in the Official Journal of the EU as Regulation (EU) 2024/1083. For the first time, the EU is thus creating a common legal framework for media freedom and pluralism in all member states. The regulation aims to protect and promote fundamental principles. These include editorial independence, media plurality, and free cross-border media offerings within the internal market.

The background to the EMFA stems from worrying developments in some countries. These include state intervention in media, political influence on public broadcasters, non-transparent media ownership structures, and fragmented national regulations protecting media freedom. Additionally, digitalization and the market power of large online platforms expose journalistic content to new threats.

The EMFA responds to these challenges with binding rules for media companies, online platforms, and public authorities. It supplements existing EU regulations like the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD). It introduces sector-specific requirements for the media sector. The regulation has been in force since May 7, 2024, and – after transitional periods – will apply directly in all member states from August 2025. The key content of the EMFA is presented below in a structured manner.

Editorial Freedom and Protection from State Intervention under the EMFA

The core of the EMFA is guaranteeing the editorial independence of media and protecting journalistic work from state influence. Article 4 EMFA lays down a comprehensive requirement for Member States to respect the actual editorial freedom of media service providers. Consequently, neither state bodies nor regulatory authorities may attempt to influence editorial decisions or interfere with media content (Art. 4 Para. 2 EMFA).

This prohibition of intervention aims to prevent any form of indirect censorship. It aligns with the spirit of Art. 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the prohibition of censorship in Art. 5 para. 1 sentence 3 of the German Basic Law. Furthermore, the EMFA explicitly strengthens the protection of journalistic sources and communications.

Article 4(3) EMFA prohibits Member States from forcing media or journalists to disclose information about confidential sources. It also prohibits surveillance, interception, search, or seizure of media professionals or their contacts if intended to locate sources. Even the use of spyware on devices of journalists or their contacts is generally prohibited. These clear requirements set high hurdles for state intervention.

They adopt established principles of case law (particularly of the ECtHR and BVerfG) on source protection and now make them the EU-wide standard. However, the EMFA recognizes that state measures may be necessary in exceptional cases. Article 4 paras. 4-6 EMFA contains narrowly defined exceptions.

An intervention, such as a search in a newsroom or the use of surveillance software, may only occur under strict conditions:

In the case of spyware use, the purpose must also be to investigate particularly serious criminal offenses (Art. 4 para. 5 EMFA). These requirements ensure that journalistic protection rights may only be restricted in cases of serious danger, such as terrorism, and under judicial control. Automatic mass surveillance of media professionals is therefore clearly excluded.

Overall, the EMFA enshrines robust protection of press freedom at Union level. This does not imply a radical change for Germany, as Article 5 of the Basic Law provides similar protection. Rather, the EMFA supplements fundamental rights protection and establishes binding minimum standards in all EU member states. German journalists benefit directly as their sources and data are now better protected against state spying throughout Europe.

Requirements for Public Media Organizations

Another focus of the EMFA is the independence of public service broadcasters. Public broadcasters play a central role in democratic opinion-forming in many member states, including Germany. However, their proximity to the state carries the risk of political influence. Article 5 EMFA therefore obliges Member States to ensure effective safeguards for the independent functioning of public service media providers.

Specifically, Art. 5 Para. 1 EMFA requires public broadcasters to act independently in editorial and organizational terms and to fulfill their public programming mandate impartially. In particular, procedures for the appointment and dismissal of management bodies must be designed to maintain independence (Art. 5 Para. 2 EMFA).

Managing directors or directors of public broadcasters must be selected based on transparent, open, and non-discriminatory procedures and objective criteria. Their term of office must be long enough to ensure actual independence. Dismissal before the end of the term may only occur for good cause, must be sufficiently justified, and must provide legal protection (judicial review) for those affected. The EMFA thus lays down principles already initiated in Germany by case law (e.g., the 2014 ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court in the ZDF case), advocating for less political proportionality in personnel decisions and effective legal protection against dismissal.

According to the EMFA, the financing of public service media must also meet special criteria. Art. 5 para. 3 EMFA requires transparent and objective funding procedures that ensure adequate, sufficient, and predictable resources. Funding should not jeopardize editorial independence, for example, by arbitrary annual budget cuts used as a means of pressure. Multi-year financing decisions are expressly recommended.

This approach aligns with the German system of financing contributions through broadcasting fees, which also emphasizes stability and independence from the state. However, problems like the politically blocked contribution adjustment in 2020/21 demonstrate the continued importance of such guidelines. The EMFA could encourage member states to implement procedures that further reduce political influence on budgets.

Finally, Art. 5 para. 4 EMFA obliges states to establish independent bodies to monitor compliance with these requirements. These supervisory mechanisms must be free from political interference; their observations on the governance of public service media should be published. In Germany, bodies like broadcasting councils and television councils already monitor program independence, and commissions such as the KEF determine financial requirements.

The German legislator will need to examine whether these bodies meet the EMFA requirements or if new external control bodies are needed. Strengthening existing broadcasting bodies or establishing a coordinating body at state level to document compliance with EMFA principles are conceivable options. Overall, the EMFA is likely to cause little conflict in the German context but will require some adjustments.

Article 5 of the Basic Law guarantees freedom of broadcasting; the EMFA substantiates this through procedural safeguards. According to German constitutional law, the organization of broadcasting falls under the sovereignty of the federal states. However, the EU can set certain minimum standards here due to the regulation’s connection to the internal market (Art. 114 TFEU as the legal basis). These standards align with the common goal of maintaining independent public broadcasting, a goal to which the Interstate Media Treaty of the federal states is also committed.

However, the Interstate Media Treaty (MStV) itself does not yet contain detailed specifications on the internal organization of public broadcasters; these are regulated in separate Interstate Broadcasting Treaties. Federal and state governments will need to adapt these regulations by 2025. This includes transposing the transparency of appointment procedures required in Art. 5 EMFA and explicit protection against political dismissal into German law.

Transparency Obligations: Ownership and Government Advertising

To promote media pluralism and prevent hidden influence, the EMFA prescribes extensive transparency obligations for media companies. The regulation emphasizes in its recitals the crucial importance for citizens' trust to know who owns a medium and who finances it. This is the only way to identify potential conflicts of interest and assess the reliability of information.

Disclosure of Ownership Structures

Article 6 (1) EMFA obliges all media service providers to make certain up-to-date information easily accessible to their audience. This includes, in particular:

This disclosure obligation aims to allow readers to quickly identify owners and determine if a medium significantly benefits from state funding. In the print and online sector, such an extensive obligation previously did not exist in Germany. While press law typically requires an imprint with publisher and responsible parties, disclosable shareholdings were limited. Under EMFA, indirect shareholdings and beneficial owners must now also be disclosed.

Media companies will therefore need to review their ownership structure and publish this information on their website, perhaps in the masthead section or a transparency report. This may be straightforward for small publishers (e.g., “Owner: Max Mustermann”). However, more complex media companies must disclose the ownership structure down to the last natural person.

Additionally, national authorities are to establish public databases on media ownership (Art. 6 (2) EMFA). This means each Member State will create a register where disclosed media information can be centrally accessed. Such a database further increases transparency. It enables journalists and the public to research cross-media ownership links. In Germany, this task could fall to the state media authorities or a new federal agency. To date, there is no central media ownership register, only scattered commercial register data and partial media concentration reports for broadcasting.

The EMFA calls for a new infrastructure for transparency, which will involve considerable administrative work. For more information on business regulations, you might find our article on fraudulent emails with transparency registry relevant.

Rules for Government Advertising and Commercial Relations

In addition to media disclosure, the EMFA also seeks to ensure transparency and fairness in state media funding. State advertising—broadly defined as any paid communication by public bodies in the media (from advertising campaigns to image advertising by state-owned companies)—should no longer be a gray area where hidden influence or favoritism can flourish.

The regulation prescribes common principles for the award of state advertising. It must be based on transparent, objective, proportionate, and non-discriminatory criteria (Recital 73 EMFA). Practically, this means public bodies—from ministries and state authorities to local authorities—may not allocate their advertising budgets based on political convenience. Instead, award criteria such as reach, target group fit, and price-performance ratio should be published in advance.

The procedures should be designed to be competitive and fair, giving a variety of media—national and local, large and small—a chance to win advertising contracts. For example, similar principles apply to commercial communication, as discussed in the judgment on surreptitious advertising by the LG Trier.

At the same time, the EMFA requires mandatory publication of the recipients of state advertising expenditure and the respective amounts. Member States must ensure that information on which media have received what volume of state advertising is made publicly available in electronic form. This transparency aims to reduce the risk of hidden subsidies. If, for instance, a government allocates large advertising budgets to certain sympathetic media, this would become traceable and open to public discussion in the future.

In Germany, such rules could create friction with federal structures, as government advertising is allocated decentrally by countless bodies (federal, state, local, and public authorities). Currently, there is no uniform publicity about how much the public sector spends on media advertising overall. The EMFA will likely require implementing a reporting and publication system. For example, annual reports on advertising money spent on specific media could be introduced, similar to transparency registers for public procurement.

Legally, these requirements should be compatible with the German framework. Although Article 5 of the Basic Law regulates freedom of the press, transparency about state funds constitutes good administrative practice rather than an encroachment. Conflicts with the Interstate Media Treaty are unlikely, as state advertising contracts are not yet specifically standardized. Instead, EMFA requirements supplement German public procurement law. They prevent the exemption of the media sector from traditional contract awarding (e.g., for editorial content, cf. section 12 (2) no. 1 VOL/A) from being abused.

Authorities will need to adapt their procurement practices to comply with EMFA principles. This can be particularly positive for small media. Local and independent media houses are more likely to secure government advertising placements if these are tendered transparently and not awarded behind closed doors.

Obligations of Very Large Online Platforms in Dealing with Journalistic Content

Given the increasing importance of online platforms for news dissemination, the EMFA also addresses the protection of journalistic content in the digital space. Large platforms like social networks, video platforms, and search engines act as gatekeepers to news for many people. Their algorithms and moderation decisions can significantly influence the visibility of media content. To prevent unjustified deletion, blocking, or downgrading of journalistic contributions, the EMFA includes special obligations for “very large online platforms” (VLOPs) as defined by the DSA (i.e., services with over 45 million users in the EU).

The objective of these regulations is clear: editorial content should be protected from automatic deletion or visibility restrictions as long as it does not violate the law. This stems from cases where algorithmic filter systems erroneously mark legitimate media content as a violation. Examples include images from war zones blocked as “violence” or investigative content wrongly classified as disinformation. The EMFA is now establishing procedural safeguards here.

Essentially, the regulation requires VLOPs to exercise particular care when acting against content from recognized media providers. Before a platform deletes content from a media service or restricts its visibility (e.g., by de-listing or “shadow banning”), it must inform and consult the concerned media company in advance. Specifically, the EMFA stipulates that the platform must provide a justification for the planned removal or blocking. This justification must reference the relevant community standards or T&C rules that the content allegedly violates. This written notification corresponds to the transparency requirements of the DSA (Art. 17 DSA) and the P2B Regulation but goes further in the media context.

The media service provider must be given the opportunity to respond to the notification and explain its position within 24 hours. Only after this period has expired – or after the media service provider has responded – may the platform make the final decision and take appropriate measures. In urgent cases, such as a defined crisis according to Art. 36 para. 2 DSA (e.g., disinformation campaigns during war), the deadline can be shortened. However, the media provider must still have a reasonable opportunity to react. Once the platform has made a decision (e.g., the block remains), the media service must be informed immediately.

These procedural obligations ensure that no automated deletion occurs blindly without the affected medium having a chance to comment. This helps avoid wrong decisions. For example, a news service can explain to the platform why a seemingly problematic video belongs in its news context and does not breach rules. This is particularly important for small news portals or freelance journalists, as it allows them to defend themselves against unjustified moderation before damage (invisibility of content) occurs. For related discussions on platform liability, consider our article on liability of website operators for user comments.

In addition to this prior involvement, the EMFA stipulates that complaints from media services must be prioritized. Platforms must design their internal complaint and resolution systems (known from Art. 20 DSA) to examine and decide on complaints from media service providers immediately and with priority. Media can be represented by associations, which helps freelance journalists, who can make their voices heard through press associations. For individuals, adherence to regulations like GDPR compliance for the self-employed is also crucial.

If a media service discovers that a platform is repeatedly restricting its content without good reason, it is entitled to a dialogue with the platform (Art. 17 para. 6 EMFA, mutatis mutandis). The platform must then cooperate in good faith with the media service to find an amicable solution and avoid future unjustified blocking. The media service can inform the newly established EU body (see next section) and the EU Commission about such cases and even request an opinion from the body. This creates an escalation option if platforms are stubborn despite requirements. The EU board can make recommendations on how the platform should proceed to respect media freedom.

It is important to note that this privilege is not unlimited. Illegal content or clearly unlawful posts from the media are not protected. The platform may and must remove such content in accordance with the DSA and other laws. In such cases, the EMFA stipulates that special rules do not apply, for example, for terrorist propaganda or criminal hate speech. Fake profiles claiming to be “media” without authorization are also not protected.

A media service must presumably meet certain criteria or declare adherence to journalistic due diligence to benefit from the described treatment. The EMFA mentions a declaration by the media service (probably in Art. 17 para. 1 EMFA) committing to basic journalistic standards, such as legal compliance and content responsibility. This prevents “rogue media” from benefiting from protection, which only claim media freedom for appearances (e.g., foreign disinformation channels).

The declaration is not an obstacle for genuine media, as reputable providers already operate under such standards (e.g., compliance with the press code). Overall, the EMFA significantly strengthens the position of the media in relation to large tech platforms. For German media companies—whether large publishing houses or local online newspapers—the new rules mean additional legal protection in the digital space. Their published content can no longer simply disappear automatically without justification and a hearing. If a platform acts arbitrarily, an EU-level forum will examine the case. This also supports Article 5 of the Basic Law, which protects information dissemination. Where previously private platform rules effectively represented the “new threat of censorship,” the EU is now setting boundaries to preserve journalistic content. Conflicts with German law are hardly to be feared; rather, it is an addition to the regulatory framework with aspects that could not be regulated nationally, as platforms often operate across Europe.

European Board for Media Services

The EMFA establishes a new institution at EU level to implement and monitor the new rules: the European Board for Media Services (Art. 8 EMFA). This body is designed as an independent entity that facilitates cooperation among national media supervisory authorities and ensures consistent application of the law.

The Board consists of representatives from the respective national regulatory authorities responsible for media (Art. 10 Para. 1 EMFA). In Germany, this would likely include the Directors’ Conference of the State Media Authorities (for private broadcasting and telemedia) and potentially representatives for the press sector. However, it needs clarification which body will be officially delegated, as there is currently no state regulatory authority for the press. It is conceivable that Germany will appoint a representative of the state media authorities, which traditionally also supervise youth protection and media intermediaries. Each member state has one vote on the committee; decisions are taken by a two-thirds majority (Art. 10 Para. 2-3). The EU Commission participates as an observer without voting rights (Art. 10 Para. 6).

Organizationally, the Board replaces the previously informal ERGA (European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services), which existed under the AVMSD (Art. 8 (2) EMFA). However, the new body has a broader agenda than ERGA, which primarily focused on audiovisual media. It will address all media sectors, including press and digital media, as covered by the EMFA. Importantly, the Board acts independently and may not accept instructions from governments (Art. 9 EMFA). Its independence is also supported by the fact that the EU Commission provides a secretariat (Art. 11 EMFA), which handles administrative tasks and provides technical support to the Board without direct intervention.

The tasks of the European Media Board are manifold. According to the EMFA (particularly Art. 12 ff.), it should promote the uniform application of the Media Freedom Act and coordinate cross-border media issues. For example, the Board will:

The European Board for Media Services thus marks a paradigm shift. For the first time, there is formal European media supervisory cooperation beyond the purely audiovisual sector. While media supervision in content terms remains national (e.g., press supervision traditionally through self-regulation), the Board ensures that the boundaries and guidelines set out in the EMFA are uniformly respected everywhere.

In Germany, aligning with the existing media authority structure could be a particular challenge. The Interstate Media Treaty already has a commission (KJM) for youth protection and the KEK for concentration control in broadcasting. The KEK has been examining media concentrations in the TV sector for years and publishes reports on dominant market positions. The EMFA now calls for assessing “significant media market concentrations” in terms of diversity of opinion. This task is likely similar to the CEC’s but potentially cross-sectoral (print, online, and broadcasting combined).

The Board could assess cross-border mergers or recommend minimum standards for national merger reviews. For example, if a large publisher acquires newspapers in several EU countries, national authorities could exchange information via the Board to preserve European media diversity. Since the Board has purely coordinating and advisory functions, conflicts with German constitutional law are unlikely. The sovereignty of the federal states over culture and media is not undermined, as the Board cannot make sovereign decisions in Germany. However, it gives a voice to the European dimension of media supervision. For German media regulators, this means additional work and cooperation, including regular meetings at EU level and preparing reports. In the long term, this could also protect German interests by ensuring that abuses in other countries (e.g., politicization of public broadcasters in Member State X) that indirectly affect the competitive framework of German media do not go unnoticed.

New Obligations and Compliance for Small Media and Journalists

The EMFA explicitly targets not only large corporations or the state but also all media service providers. This includes small publishers, local broadcasters, and freelance journalists, provided they offer editorial services to the general public. What practical changes will these players face?

Firstly, the transparency obligations: By 2025, every media provider must check their own publication to determine what information must be disclosed in accordance with Art. 6 EMFA. For one-person journalists or small online magazines, this is usually straightforward. They must clarify their identity (name/contact) and whether there are other owners (usually only themselves). However, if a local news portal, for instance, has an investor, that investor's identity must be disclosed. Shares held by public bodies (e.g., a city holding a stake in an advertising journal) must also be disclosed.

All media must also annually disclose whether they have received money for advertisements from public bodies. A freelance journalist with their own blog, for example, would disclose if they placed an advertising campaign for a ministry. Although government advertising mainly concerns traditional media, it also includes online banners from a town hall on a local news portal. Accordingly, even smaller media must track and publish such income. Similar transparency is also discussed in the context of greenwashing in advertising.

These transparency requirements entail a compliance effort that remains manageable. It involves collecting and annually updating data. Many media companies already possess this information internally (e.g., from investment reports or accounting). The only new aspect is that it must be published proactively. Media companies should therefore establish processes to reliably record EMFA data (owners, beneficial owners, government advertising revenue) and make it available on their website, for instance. Larger publishing houses could publish annual transparency reports. For small companies, an “About Us” section with the required information is probably sufficient. It should be noted that information must be kept up-to-date in case of changes, such as a new principal owner joining the company. For broader compliance strategies, our article on NIS2 compliance might offer additional insights.

One delicate point could be the disclosure of beneficial owners, especially if wealthy private individuals behind a medium previously wished to remain anonymous. Here, the interest in transparency potentially conflicts with data protection or personal rights. However, the EMFA prioritizes the public interest: especially for politically influential media, the public should know who is behind them. In Germany, this is generally supported by the transparency register (for companies) and press law, so there are no insurmountable legal hurdles. Nevertheless, media lawyers must prepare their clients for the fact that the anonymity of media patrons is no longer guaranteed, as this new rule is mandatory throughout the EU.

Furthermore, Art. 6 para. 3 EMFA requires news providers to take internal measures to ensure editorial independence. This primarily targets media companies themselves: they should implement suitable precautions to ensure editorial offices can work free from undue influence (e.g., from owners or advertisers). The law explicitly aims to disclose conflicts and enable free decisions within the defined editorial line. In practice, this means editorial offices and publishers should review their editorial statutes, compliance rules, or codes of conduct. Many, especially larger, media already have guidelines on separating editorial and publishing (a “Chinese wall” between advertising and editorial departments) or on handling vested interests. The EMFA also encourages smaller editorial offices to formulate such principles. For example, a local publisher could stipulate in writing that the editor-in-chief may report without instructions and that owners have no influence on certain sensitive topics. Or freelance journalists could transparently disclose when they write about topics in which they are personally involved (conflict of interest).

Although these obligations are somewhat vague (“measures they deem appropriate”), they set a standard for evaluation. Should a dispute arise (e.g., a dismissed editor claims the owner interfered politically), the question of whether the publisher had or neglected internal protective measures required under EMFA could be relevant. Clients, especially small media companies, should therefore be advised to voluntarily introduce an editorial statute or a code of conduct meeting EMFA objectives. This not only promotes compliance but also readership trust. For assistance with drafting such foundational documents, you might consult our expertise on drafting contracts for SaaS companies, which emphasizes clear legal frameworks.

For freelance journalists, the EMFA brings not only obligations but also new rights. They now enjoy uniform minimum protection from arbitrary state action throughout Europe (searches, seizures, surveillance—inadmissible except for the most serious criminal offenses and with a warrant). This strengthens their position in Germany, for example, during cross-border investigations. Additionally, independent media professionals will benefit from EMFA rules in case of platform problems. If, for instance, a freelance journalist’s YouTube channel is blocked due to alleged terms of service breaches, they can demand the procedures provided in the regulation (statement of reasons, hearing, expedited complaint). Practically, this should initially go through the platform’s complaints management systems. If necessary, a complaint could also be lodged with the competent authority, which could then involve the Board. This also aligns with the broader framework of liability risks for pseudo-self-employed individuals.

However, to benefit from these advantages, individual journalists should ensure they are considered media service providers within the meaning of the Regulation. The definition of “media service” in the EMFA depends on whether content is disseminated under editorial responsibility (Art. 2 EMFA). A journalistic blog or YouTube channel may fall under this definition if it regularly provides news/information content. It is conceivable that platforms may require media providers to self-declare or register to be treated as privileged. Therefore, it might be sensible for freelancers to join an industry organization (press association or similar) or clearly state on their website that they follow journalistic due diligence standards. In case of doubt, one can then prove to a platform or authority that they meet the criteria of a reputable media service.

In summary, smaller media and journalists face certain new organizational obligations (providing transparency information, observing internal independence rules). At the same time, they gain rights and legal certainty in their profession. Compliance efforts are thus for a greater good: strengthening media freedom and integrity in reporting throughout the EU. Lawyers in media law will need to support their clients in the coming months to implement these new requirements. This includes advising on creating compliant imprints or drafting editorial guidelines, and exercising new rights (e.g., proceedings before the Media Board).

Fazit: Importance of the European Media Freedom Act

The European Media Freedom Act represents a milestone in European media policy. For the first time, a binding legal act goes beyond pure market regulation and directly sets standards for the media sector that safeguard freedom. At a time when the press has faced pressure in parts of Europe—with politicized media supervision, the oligarchization of media markets, and state propaganda—the EU is drawing a clear line with the EMFA. Media freedom and media diversity are essential foundations of democracy and must not be debated within the internal market.

For Germany, with its long tradition of strong press freedom (Article 5 of the German Constitution) and dual broadcasting system, many EMFA regulations may seem self-evident. However, harmonization at EU level ensures these standards apply elsewhere, creating fair competitive conditions across borders. German media companies benefit if, for example, ownership structures in neighboring countries are more transparent or if a public broadcaster politically “aligned” in an EU country no longer distorts the market with hidden state funding. Conversely, German rules—for example, on media concentration control—will need to adapt to the European structure and potentially evolve further to withstand exchange within the Board.

The question of competence remains an area of tension. Critics might argue that the EU oversteps its competencies with media policy guidelines, as media are sensitive in terms of cultural and constitutional law. However, the Commission deliberately constructed the EMFA as an internal market measure, arguing that inconsistent regulations and anti-media measures in individual countries distort the free movement of services and competition. This argument is plausible, especially since the EMFA does not exercise content-based media supervision but rather stipulates structural principles (similar to the fight against corruption or data protection, which are also based on internal market clauses). From a German perspective, compatibility with Article 5 of the Basic Law is given, as the EMFA does not restrict press freedom but rather substantiates and safeguards it. The core of the fundamental right (free establishment of the press, no censorship) is not affected. On the contrary, the ordinance even implements at the level of simple law what the Basic Law implicitly presupposes: that the media are independent of the state, that diversity is safeguarded, and that journalistic work is protected.

In practice, effectiveness will depend on EMFA enforcement. An EU set of rules is only as good as its implementation on the ground. This is where the European Board for Media Services will play a key role. If a Member State is reluctant to enforce unwelcome transparency obligations (e.g., in countries where government-allied oligarchs control media), the Board—supported by the Commission—can exert pressure or create publicity. The same applies to the misuse of state advertising budgets. New publicity obligations could quickly expose such practices and become an issue within the EU.

The EMFA thus also serves as a protective shield against political influence. It offers small, independent media a framework that improves their conditions of existence. If they know that government agencies cannot solely place advertisements with pro-government papers, or if they can defend against unjustified blocks on Facebook & Co., this strengthens diversity. The regulation is also a statement against concentration tendencies. Although it does not prohibit media mergers, it forces reflection on diversity of opinion in every major merger. The interplay with German media concentration law (e.g., 30% audience share limit in TV) could be interesting here. EU requirements may inspire German legislators to introduce stronger merger control for press/online or at least systematically assess public impact (beyond antitrust market share thinking).

For clients—whether publishers, journalists, or broadcasters—the EMFA means that media freedom will no longer be solely a defensive right against the state. Instead, it will be underpinned by positive obligations for all players. Freedom of reporting is thus flanked by transparency, fairness, and accountability. This development corresponds to a modern understanding of press freedom: not absolutely unrestricted, but resilient against manipulation.

The European Media Freedom Act will shape the media landscape in the EU in the long term. It is a comprehensive legal instrument that strengthens the protective shield for free media and defines common rules for a fair media market. Especially in times when the media information space is challenged by digital dynamics and targeted attacks (e.g., disinformation), the EU is sending a clear signal. For smaller media and journalists, often advised by specialized IT and media law firms, it is crucial to adapt to the new requirements early and leverage the opportunities the EMFA offers for a defensive, pluralistic media order.