COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market (European Media Freedom Act)
Date: 2022-09-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: advertising, communications industry, dissemination of information, mass media, provision of services, regulation of telecommunications, service, single market

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.9.2022  SWD(2022) 287 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market (European Media Freedom Act) {COM(2022) 457 final} - {SEC(2022) 322 final} - {SWD(2022) 286 final}  
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHEET 
Impact assessment on the European Media Freedom Act 

A. Need for action 
What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level? 
As media markets become more digital and inherently cross-border, several problems hinder the 
proper functioning of the internal media market. These are: 
-  obstacles to cross-border activity and investment;  
- 
- 
-  opaque and/or unfair allocation of economic resources. 

insufficient regulatory cooperation and convergence; 
interference in the free provision of quality media services; and 

While the gravity of the problems varies across the EU, overall they make it difficult for media 
players to use the internal market to its full potential, to maintain economic sustainability and to 
fulfil properly their societal role to inform citizens and businesses.  
What should be achieved? 
The general objective is to improve the functioning of the internal media market.  
Specific objectives of the initiative are the following:  

- 
- 
- 
- 

fostering cross-border activity and investment in the internal media market; 
increasing regulatory cooperation and convergence in the internal media market; 
facilitating free provision of quality media services in the internal market; and 
ensuring transparent and fair allocation of economic resources in the internal media market. 

What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)? 
The initiative will reduce the burden market players face in order to comply with different national 
legal regimes when they operate in several Member States. It will increase predictability and legal 
certainty, promote fair competition (especially vis-à-vis global online platforms), enhance cross-
border investment and improve the quality of media services provided in the EU. Intervention only 
at national level would lack scale and the necessary approximating effect. In any case, the initiative 
will not interfere with national identities or regulatory traditions in the media field. 
B. Solutions 
What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If 
not, why? 
Three options were assessed in detail in addition to the dynamic1 baseline. 

Option  1:  Recommendation  on  media  pluralism  and  independence,  encouraging  Member 
States and, in certain areas, companies in the media market to implement a set of actions to promote 
media pluralism, editorial independence and as transparency and fairness in the media market. 

Option  2:  Legislative  proposal  and  recommendation  on  media  independence,  the  former 
providing common rules for the internal market for media services and the latter encouraging media 
companies and Member States to foster media independence and transparency. 

Option 3: Enhanced legislative proposal adding on top of all the legislative elements of Option 
2 further obligations for companies in the media market and regulators to foster the availability of 
quality media services and transparent/fair allocation of economic resources in the media market. 

Legislative proposals would envisage the creation of a board composed of representatives of the 
relevant national regulatory authorities, assisted by a secretariat provided by the Commission (Sub-
option A), or an independent EU office (Sub-option B). 

The preferred option recommended for political adoption is Option 2 Sub-option A. 
What are different stakeholders’ views? Who supports which option? 

1 The baseline scenario is dynamic, as it takes into account all existing relevant EU laws (e.g. AMVSD) and those 
being finalised (e.g. DSA and DMA). 

1 

 
 
                                                           
The  option  of  a  balanced  legislative  intervention  as  opposed  to  no  action  or  detailed  standard-
setting  is  supported  by  the  public  and  most  other  stakeholders,  including  the  media  freedom 
community, consumer organisations, national media regulators, the European Regulators Group 
for  Audiovisual  Media  Services  (ERGA),  public  and  private  broadcasters,  content  distributors, 
online  intermediaries  and  the  advertising  ecosystem  players.  Only  publishers  would  prefer  a 
recommendation, although they do support measures on audience measurement, state advertising 
and protection of journalistic sources. As regards governance, there is wide support for an oversight 
structure based on ERGA. Regulators and the media freedom community in particular are in favour 
of  strengthening  ERGA,  while  companies  and  business  associations  would  rather  keep  it  in  its 
current form.  

C. Impacts of the preferred option 
What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)? 
A  better  functioning  internal  media  market  will  lead  to  increased  investment,  scaling  up  and 
competition, thus improving the viability of media companies and providing consumers with access 
to a more diverse range of quality media content. The annual net economic benefits, in terms of 
increased revenues of media companies, are estimated at EUR 2.9 billion. The expected societal 
benefits include growing accountability and trust in the media and improving media freedom and 
pluralism, thus strengthening the rule of law and democratic standards. 
What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)? 
The  preferred  option  will  entail  no  costs  for  citizens,  and  only  negligible  adjustment  costs  for 
businesses,  i.e.  overall  one-off  costs  for  all  companies  between  EUR 9.4  and  14  million  and 
recurrent  annual  costs  between  EUR 5.6  and  14.5  million  all  of  which  will  be  absorbed  into 
business-as-usual costs. The annual costs for public authorities will be EUR 6.1 million. This will 
include approximately EUR 2 to 2.3 million in annual costs for the EU: 8-10 full-time equivalent 
posts plus around EUR 1 million2 operational budget estimated for the governance solution set out 
in Sub-option A.  
What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness? 
Costs for SMEs are expected to be minor, mainly linked to familiarisation with the new measures. 
They will be balanced by increased benefits, which are expected to be significant as the preferred 
option  would  enable  SMEs  to  operate,  including  across  borders,  in  a  more  predictable  and 
consistent  regulatory  environment.  The  initiative  would  expand  the  playing  field  for  SMEs  to 
compete with other market players, including online platforms. In addition, more transparent and 
fairer allocation of state advertising would reduce market distortions, for the benefit of SMEs. 
Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? 
National authorities will incur recurring administrative and enforcement costs, but also savings: 
national media regulators could expect to save up to 20% of their current annual expenditure related 
to coordination in ERGA. The preferred option is expected to increase the quality of cooperation 
among  media  regulators  and  help  them  to  tackle  the  cross-border  challenges.  In  addition,  the 
measures on state advertising and independence safeguards for public service media will increase 
transparency and effectiveness of the use of state resources. 
Will there be other significant impacts? 
Growing provision  of quality media content,  greater market  transparency  and  safer information 
space  will  empower and better protect consumers, improving the conditions  for the exercise of 
freedom of expression and information. In addition, improved access to quality media services for 
the public and businesses will improve the integrity of the single market as a whole. 
Proportionality? 

2 The legislative financial statement includes detailed figures on the costs for the EU.  

2 

 
 
                                                           
The measures envisaged in the preferred option are focused and do not go beyond what is necessary 
to achieve the objectives of the initiative. In particular, the preferred option only envisages balanced 
harmonisation measures, coupled with a cooperation framework for national media regulators in 
an EU board, which  are necessary for the proper functioning of the internal media market.  The 
proposal is mindful of the burden on different actors and limits the new obligations to the essential 
ones, with direct compliance and enforcement costs commensurate with the initiative’s objectives. 
D. Follow up 
When will the policy be reviewed? 
After  the  adoption  of  the  legislative  instrument,  Member  States  will  be  given  between  3  and  6 
months  to  adapt  their  national  frameworks,  depending  on  the  relevant  provisions.  Its  first 
evaluation will take place 4 years after the new rules’ entry into force, and subsequent evaluations 
will be carried out every 4 years. An independent mechanism to monitor risks to the functioning 
of the internal market for media services will be established under the legislative instrument. In the 
case of the recommendation, a specific monitoring scheme will also be envisaged. In particular, 
Member States  will submit to the Commission all relevant information regarding measures and 
actions  taken  on  media  ownership  transparency.  Other  areas  of  the  recommendation  will  be 
monitored as part of the mechanism established by the legislative instrument. 

3