‘Grossly unfair’: Meta slams Australia’s bid to make platforms pay for news

Lead

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, has formally opposed the Australian government's proposed News Bargaining Incentive (NBI), calling it "poorly designed" and "grossly unfair." The draft legislation, which targets Meta, Google and TikTok, would impose a levy of up to 2.25% on their Australian revenues unless they strike commercial deals with local news outlets.

In a submission released Thursday, Meta argued the proposal is a "discriminatory, retroactive tax" that "plainly violates" Australia's commitments under its free trade agreement with the United States. The company said the law "will not deliver the sustainable news sector that Australian journalists and audiences deserve," echoing statements covered by ABC Australia, Al Jazeera, and The Guardian.

Coverage Comparison

Three outlets — ABC Australia, Al Jazeera, and The Guardian — reported on Meta's opposition, each presenting slightly different angles. ABC Australia highlighted the government's defense of the plan, quoting Communications Minister Anika Wells, who called it "only fair" that large digital platforms contribute to journalism. Al Jazeera focused on Meta's criticism, describing the proposal as a "discriminatory tax" that would insulate publishers from competition. The Guardian emphasized the trade agreement angle and noted that US tech lobby groups have also opposed the legislation, citing potential violations of the US-Australia free trade agreement.

Key Claims

• The levy and its purpose: The News Bargaining Incentive would impose a 2.25% tax on digital platforms' Australian revenue unless they reach payment agreements with news outlets. According to the government, the levy could generate between 200 and 250 million Australian dollars annually for local media, based on figures reported by multiple sources.

• Meta's position: Meta has called the proposal "discriminatory" and "economically incoherent," arguing it would not create a sustainable news sector. In its submission, the company said the law "insulates publishers from the competitive pressure to evolve by guaranteeing revenue regardless of whether they build sustainable business models." Meta also claimed the tax "plainly violates" the US-Australia free trade agreement, a claim reported by The Guardian and ABC Australia, though it has not been independently verified.

• US trade deal concerns: The Guardian reported that Meta and US tech lobby groups, including the National Foreign Trade Council, have cited the free trade agreement in their opposition. The lobby group argued the bill could create inconsistencies with prohibitions against discrimination against US services and digital products. This claim was carried by a single outlet and has not been independently confirmed.

• Government's defense: Communications Minister Anika Wells defended the plan, saying it is "only fair" that large digital platforms contribute to the hard work of journalism. This quote was reported by ABC Australia.

• Job losses in journalism: The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance has reported that more than 19,500 journalism jobs have been lost since 2008, a figure cited in coverage to underscore the need for such legislation.

Perspectives

Meta's view: The company frames the NBI as a punitive tax on foreign companies that ignores the value exchange between platforms and news publishers. Meta argues that news organizations share content on its platforms for free because they receive commercial benefits, and that the tax would not address the root causes of media sustainability.

Australian government's view: The Albanese government presents the NBI as a necessary measure to support public interest journalism and close a loophole that allowed tech companies to stop paying for news content. The government has emphasized the importance of a diverse and independent media sector.

US tech industry's view: US tech lobby groups have sided with Meta, warning that the legislation could violate trade rules and create a disincentive for digital platforms to grow in Australia. They argue that similar obligations should apply to all platforms, not just a select few.

Journalism advocacy view: Australian media organizations and unions have mostly welcomed the proposal, citing the significant job losses in the industry and the need for stable revenue streams. However, some have expressed concerns about the distribution mechanism, which would allocate funds based on the number of journalists employed.