Note: This analysis is part of our series on geopolitical tensions in digital policy. The series starts by dissecting a recent US memorandum that scrutinises different types of foreign digital policy. Topical pieces, including this, then distill the global state of affairs and explain the cause of geopolitical tensions in one type of digital policy.

The recent US memorandum lists foreign requirements for US streaming services to “fund local productions” as one of the measures that violate US sovereignty and limit US companies' competitiveness. To mitigate harm and repair imbalances, the memorandum threatens to impose tariffs and pursue other responsive action. Below, we outline how governments are promoting local content and why this contributes to geopolitical tensions, based on the Digital Policy Alert database.

Governments promote local content because the rapid spread of the digital economy is threatening the business model of traditional media companies, from entertainment to journalism. Regulatory frameworks aim to address this challenge by requiring certain actors in the digital economy to support local media companies. Notably, these requirements apply to providers of streaming services as well as other providers, mostly user-generated content platforms and search engines.

The Digital Policy Alert has documented 56 developments that promote local content at the national and EU level, as of 7 April 2025. We distinguish between three regulatory instruments that promote local content:

• Local content requirements require digital service providers to maintain a quota of local content in their content libraries. 

• Investment in local content obligations require digital service providers to invest a percentage of their (local) revenues into the production of local content.

• Content remuneration obligations require digital service providers to compensate the creators of certain content when it is disseminated on the digital service, including through links or snippets.

The analysis of 19 local content requirements showcases that:

• The most active jurisdictions were Canada (5), the EU (2), and Australia (2).

• More than half of the developments were adopted or in force (11), while some developments are still under deliberation (6), and two were rejected (2).

• Developments most often targeted streaming service providers (16), but some also addressed user-generated content platforms (4).

• Examples include a 30% quota regarding European works for streaming providers in Switzerland and a Russian requirement for providers of audiovisual services with an audience exceeding 100,000 people to show 20 major Russian state television channels. 

Investment in local content obligations were more rare:

• The most active jurisdiction was Italy, followed by Australia, Russia, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Canada.

• Most developments were adopted or in force (5), while fewer were rejected or ongoing.

• Developments most often targeted streaming service providers (7), but some also addressed user-generated content platforms and app stores. 

• Examples include the obligation for streaming providers to invest 20% of annual local revenue into European works in Italy (for providers with in-scope revenue above a EUR 5 million threshold) and 5% of local annual turnover into Dutch audiovisual productions in the Netherlands (for providers with in-scope turnover above a EUR 10 million threshold). 

Most often, governments imposed content remuneration obligations, totalling 29:

• The most active jurisdictions were Canada (7), Australia (5) and Italy (4).

• While most developments were again adopted or in force (17), a larger share was under deliberation (11). Only one development was rejected.

• The developments most often targeted user-generated content platforms (16) and search service providers (10). Several developments addressed “digital platforms” without precisely delineating the covered business models.

• Examples include an Indonesian regulation requiring digital platforms to collaborate with media companies to support “quality journalism,” including through licensing, profit sharing, or aggregated data sharing, among others, and Canada’s Online News Act. The Act requires large platform providers that share news content to fairly compensate news providers, who can bargain collectively. Platforms can be exempted from the obligation to negotiate: Google recently agreed to pay CAD 100 million (approx. USD 70 million) to the Canadian Journalism Collective for a five-year exemption.

Australia’s News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code is a salient example of local content promotion that was subject to vigorous negotiations and several amendments. The Code was developed after an inquiry by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission recommended addressing the “imbalance” in the bargaining relationship between leading digital platforms and news companies 

The first version of the Code would have required designated platforms to come to agreements with domestic news companies regarding the compensation for news content. A mutually negotiated agreement would have had to be reached, within 11 weeks, with any Australian news company. Failure to reach an agreement would have led to “final party arbitration,” in which both parties present an offer and one of the offers is selected. Penalties for not following the Code would have comprised AUD 10 million (approx. USD 6 million) or or 10% of the platform’s annual turnover in Australia (whichever was greater).

Meta (Facebook) and Google, poised to be the two only designated companies, vehemently raised concerns regarding this first version of the Code. Google then conducted an experiment reducing the quality of news content for 1% of Australian users and stated that it was considering removing Google Search in Australia. Meta temporarily removed news content for Australian Facebook users. 

In negotiations, government officials signalled that designations could be delayed or reconsidered, if platforms entered into significant voluntary agreements with news companies – meaning the Code would not apply to them. Both Google and Meta entered into several such voluntary agreements with major news companies. The Code was subsequently amended and adopted, although no company has been designated to date. Still, the government’s review of the Code was positive, highlighting over 30 voluntary agreements likely attributable to the code. Meta, however, did not renew its voluntary agreements, prompting the government to announce that it was considering options. 

Recently, the government proposed the News Bargaining Incentive. It would raise a levy on significant social media platforms and search engines, whose yearly revenue in Australia exceeds AUD 250 million (approx. USD 150 million). Notably, the charge would apply regardless of whether these providers carry news content, but could be offset by payments to news companies. Recent reports, however, suggest that the government is reconsidering the Incentive due to growing geopolitical tensions.

Local content promotion causes geopolitical tensions because the interests of foreign governments and local media providers clash with those of digital platforms. On the one hand, governments aim to preserve cultural identity by supporting local content creators, regarding both the entertainment and news. Platforms, on the other hand, are increasingly unwilling to pay. 

Industry pushback against foreign regulation is most vocal regarding news content remuneration. The Australian case study shows how tough negotiations between governments and platforms can be. Canada’s Online News Act caused an even stronger backlash, since it did not include a designation mechanism: Meta promptly removed news content on Facebook in Canada, reportedly causing declines in traffic and revenue for local media, as well as general news consumption.

Notably, industry pushback has expanded to other jurisdictions. Meta started deprecating Facebook News in the UK, Germany, and France as well as the US (and Australia). Google recently conducted another experiment in which it replaced news content across several European countries, to argue that news content is not crucial to its business model. Meanwhile, media companies in Turkey recently lamented that a recent change to Google’s algorithm reduced reader traffic to the point of posing an existential threat. Since the US government has signalled its discontent with foreign regimes “designed to transfer significant funds” from US companies to foreign governments or local companies, tensions are poised to continue rising.

The memorandum does not explicitly mention local content promotion in its instructions to US authorities, but several authorities will analyse foreign regulatory practices deemed to be discriminatory. In particular, the Treasury Secretary, the Commerce Secretary, and the USTR will jointly identify practices that “discriminate against, disproportionately affect, or otherwise undermine the global competitiveness or intended operation” of US companies. The results will be provided by the USTR, in a report due in April 2025, that will also recommend actions to counter such practices.

Governments preparing for these next steps should consider whether and how they promote local content, differentiating the three regulatory instruments outlined above. Since tensions are highest regarding content remuneration obligations, particular attention should be given to such requirements. In this regard, governments can learn from each other, especially regarding the trade-offs of such regimes and the design choices therein.