Changes from adopted text to adopted text

RemovedRecital 26: (26) In 2020, the ERGA adopted a Memorandum of Understanding consisting of a voluntary framework for cooperation to strengthen the cross-border enforcement of media rules on audiovisual media services and video-sharing platform services. Building on that voluntary framework and in order to ensure the comprehensive and effective enforcement of Union measures concerning media law, to prevent possible circumvention of the applicable rules by rogue media service providers and to avoid additional barriers to the provision of media services in the internal market, it is essential that national regulatory authorities or bodies cooperate effectively and efficiently with one another within the established legal framework.

RemovedRecital 27: (27) Due to the pan-European nature of video-sharing platforms, national regulatory authorities or bodies need to have a dedicated tool to protect users of video-sharing platform services from certain harmful content, including commercial communications. In particular, and without prejudice to the country-of-origin principle, a mechanism is needed to allow any relevant national regulatory authority or body to request its peers to take necessary and proportionate actions to ensure enforcement of obligations under this Article by video-sharing platform providers. In case the use of such mechanism does not lead to an amicable solution, the freedom to provide information society services from another Member State can only be restricted if the conditions set out in Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council53 are met and following the procedure set out therein.

RemovedRecital 28: (28) Ensuring a consistent and effective implementation of this Regulation and Directive 2010/13/EU is essential. For this purpose, and to contribute to ensuring a convergent implementation of EU media law, the Commission should issue guidelines on matters covered by both this Regulation and Directive 2010/13/EU when needed. When deciding to issue guidelines, the Commission should consider in particular regulatory issues affecting a significant number of Member States or those with a cross-border element. This is the case in particular for national measures taken under Article 7a of Directive 2010/13/EU on the appropriate prominence of audiovisual media services of general interest. In view of the abundance of information and the increasing use of digital means to access the media, it is important to ensure prominence for content of general interest, in order to help achieving a level playing field in the internal market and compliance with the fundamental right to receive information under Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union. Given the possible impact of the national measures taken under Article 7a on the functioning of the internal media market, guidelines by the Commission would be important to achieve legal certainty in this field. Such guidelines should be drafted with the support of the Board and should respect the Member States’ competence in cultural matters with a view to promoting media pluralism, be principle-based and be without prejudice …

RemovedRecital 28 a (new): (28a) Minimum harmonisation of rules regarding restrictions on media ownership across the European Union is one of the fundamental ways of guaranteeing a fair plurality of views, of protecting fair competition among media services providers within the European media market and of upholding the right of consumers to receive a variety of diverse sources of information and diverse opinions in an impartial and pluralistic manner. For that reason, certain politically exposed persons, as defined in Article 3, point (9), of Directive (EU) 2015/849, such as heads of State, heads of government and ministers, should, after being appointed as such, terminate their business relationship with a media service provider.

RemovedRecital 29: (29) In order to ensure a level playing field in the provision of diverse audiovisual media services in the face of technological developments in the internal market, it is necessary to find common harmonised European standards for devices controlling or managing access to and use of audiovisual media services, including remote controls, or devices carrying digital signals conveying the audiovisual content from source to destination. In this context, it is important to avoid diverging technical standards creating barriers and additional costs for the industry and consumers while encouraging solutions to implement existing obligations concerning audiovisual media services.

RemovedRecital 30: (30) Regulatory authorities or bodies referred to in Article 30 of Directive 2010/13/EU have specific practical expertise that allows them to effectively balance the interests of the providers and recipients of media services while ensuring the respect for the freedom of expression and safeguarding and promoting media pluralism. This is key in particular when it comes to protecting the internal market from media services from outside the Union, irrespective of the means by which they are distributed or accessed, that target or reach audiences in the Union where, inter alia in view of the control that may be exercised by third countries over them, they contain a public provocation to commit a terrorist offence as set out in Directive (EU) 2017/541 or constitute a serious and grave risk of prejudice to public security and to the safeguarding of national security and defence. Media service providers established outside the Union and wishing to benefit from the free movement of media services for their media offerings, as one of the advantages of the internal market of the Union, should be subject to the same conditions and requirements as media service providers established within the Union. In this regard, the coordination between national regulatory authorities or bodies to face together possible public security and defence threats stemming from such media services needs to be strengthened and given a legal framework to ensure the effectiveness and possible coordination of the…

RemovedRecital 31: (31) Very large online platforms act for many users as a gateway for access to media services. Media service providers who exercise editorial responsibility over their content play a key role in the distribution of and access to information and in the exercise of freedom of information online. When exercising such editorial responsibility, they are expected to act diligently and provide information that is trustworthy and respectful of fundamental rights, in line with the regulatory requirements and co-regulatory or self-regulatory mechanisms they are subject to in the Member States. At the same time, providers of very large online platforms should also take due account of users’ right to freedom of expression and information, media freedom and media pluralism. Providers of very large online platforms should contribute in an appropriate manner to the plurality of the media by respecting the freedom of media service providers to exercise their activities without restrictions. Therefore, also in view of users’ freedom of information, where providers of very large online platforms consider that content provided by such media service providers is incompatible with their terms and conditions, while it is not contributing to a systemic risk referred to in Article 34 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, they should duly respect media freedom and media pluralism, and provide, as early as possible, the necessary explanations to media service providers as a business user, in the statement of …

RemovedRecital 32: (32) It is furthermore justified, in view of an expected positive impact on freedom to provide services and freedom of expression, that where media service providers comply with certain regulatory or self-regulatory standards, their complaints and, where applicable, complaints filed by their representative bodies in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 against decisions of providers of very large online platforms are treated with priority and, in any event, no later than 24 hours after their submission.

RemovedRecital 33: (33) To this end, providers of very large online platforms should provide a functionality on their online interface to enable media service providers to declare that they meet certain requirements, while at the same time retaining the possibility for such self-declaration to be confirmed, for example by the national regulatory authorities or bodies or the body of the self- or co-regulatory mechanism, where they consider that these conditions are not met. If confirmed in that manner, media service providers should be deemed to be recognised media service providers. It should also be possible to refer the matter to the Board, which should be able to issue a recommendation on such matters. Providers of very large online platforms may rely on information regarding compliance with these requirements, such as the machine-readable standard of the Journalism Trust Initiative, developed under the aegis of the European Committee for Standardisation, or other relevant codes of conduct. That mechanism should not deter very large online platforms from signing up to voluntary commitment No 22 of the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation or from taking measures to foster the visibility, discoverability and prominence of media services in their recommendation systems provided by media service providers that demonstrably comply with professional and ethical standards for journalism. Certification to ISO standards for professional and ethical journalism, such as the Journalism Trust Initiative…

RemovedRecital 34: (34) This Regulation recognises the importance of co-regulatory and self-regulatory mechanisms that are legally recognised in the relevant media sector in one or more Member States in the context of the provision of media services on very large online platforms. They represent a type of voluntary initiatives, for instance in a form of codes of conduct, which enable media service providers or their representatives to adopt common guidelines, including on ethical standards, correction of errors or complaint handling, amongst themselves and for themselves. Robust, inclusive and widely-accepted media co-regulation and self-regulation represents an effective guarantee of quality and professionalism of media services and is key for safeguarding editorial integrity.

RemovedRecital 35: (35) Providers of very large online platforms should engage with media service providers that respect standards of credibility and transparency and that consider that restrictions on their content are frequently imposed by providers of very large online platforms without sufficient grounds, in order to find an amicable solution for terminating any unjustified restrictions and avoiding them in the future. Providers of very large online platforms should engage in such exchanges in good faith, paying particular attention to safeguarding media freedom and freedom of information. Where the provider of a very large online platform and a media service provider fail to find an amicable solution, the media service provider should be able to lodge a complaint before a certified out-of-court dispute settlement body in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/2065.

RemovedRecital 35 a (new): (35a) Within the meaning of this Regulation, obligations for restrictions of content should not prevent very large online platforms from fighting disinformation or protecting minors. In this context, obligations should not apply in instances of down-ranking, labelling of content or diluting its visibility (such as blurring of images) when they are in line with the code of practice on disinformation and other relevant Union law. At the same time, it should be recognised that services acting in a not-for-profit purpose capacity, such as online encyclopaedias as well as educational and scientific repositories, should not be considered very large online platforms for the purpose of Article 17.

RemovedRecital 36: (36) Building on the useful role played by ERGA in monitoring compliance by the signatories of EU Code of Practice on Disinformation, the Board, with the involvement of the Expert Group, should, at least on a yearly basis, organise a structured dialogue between providers of very large online platforms, providers of very large search engines, representatives of media service providers and representatives of civil society, including from fact-checking organisations, to foster access to diverse offers of independent media on very large online platforms and very large search engines, to discuss experience and best practices related to the application of the relevant provisions of this Regulation, to monitor compliance with self-regulatory initiatives aimed at protecting society from harmful content, including those aimed at countering disinformation, and to assess the possible negative effects that such initiatives or content moderation policies might have on media freedom and media pluralism. The Commission may, where relevant, examine the reports on the results of such structured dialogues when assessing systemic and emerging issues across the Union under Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 and may ask the Board and the Expert Group to support it to this effect.

RemovedRecital 37: (37) Users of audio and audiovisual media services should be able to effectively choose the audio and audiovisual content they want to listen to or watch according to their preferences. Their freedom in this area may however be constrained by commercial practices in the media sector, namely agreements for content prioritisation between manufacturers of devices or providers of user interfaces controlling or managing access to and use of audio and audiovisual media services, such as connected televisions or car audio systems, and media service providers. Prioritisation can be implemented, for example, on the home screen of a device, through hardware, including remote controls, or software shortcuts, applications and search areas, which have implications on the users’ behaviour, who may be unduly incentivised to choose certain audio or audiovisual media offers over others. Users of audio or audiovisual media services should have the possibility to change, in a simple and user-friendly manner, the settings and default layout, including the configuration of audiovisual media services or of applications allowing users to access such services, on a user interface or on devices controlling and managing access to, and use of, audiovisual media services, without prejudice to measures to ensure the appropriate prominence of audiovisual media services of general interest, in particular measures implementing Article 7a and 7b of Directive 2010/13/EU, taken in the pursuit of legitimate pub…

RemovedRecital 37 a (new): (37a) Users of media services increasingly face difficulties in identifying who bears the editorial responsibility for the media services they use, in particular when they access them through connected devices, user interfaces or online platforms. Failure to clearly indicate editorial responsibility for media content or services, for example by incorrectly attributing or removing logos, trademarks or other characteristic traits, deprives users of media services of the ability to understand and assess the information they receive. Users of media services should therefore be able to easily identify the media service provider bearing the editorial responsibility for any given media service on all devices and user interfaces controlling or managing access to and use of media services.

RemovedRecital 37 b (new): (37b) Audiovisual media services are subject to various obligations to meet public policy goals such as supporting cultural diversity and a pluralistic media environment. It is therefore essential that devices be designed in such a way that ensures fair access to audiovisual media services in all their diversity, from the perspective of both viewers and media service providers. In that regard, particular attention should be paid to the impact of device manufacturers’ choices with respect to the design of remote controls. Numeric keypads should therefore be standard on television remote controls to avoid users becoming unjustifiably dependent on user interfaces designed by equipment manufacturers.

RemovedRecital 38: (38) Different legislative, regulatory or administrative measures can negatively affect media pluralism and the editorial independence of media service providers regarding either the provision or the operation of their media services in the internal market. Such measures can take various forms, for example rules to limit the ownership of media companies by other companies active in the media sector or non-media related sectors. They also include decisions related to licensing, such as revoking, or preventing the renewal of, media service providers’ licences or in any way unjustifiably blocking or limiting their ability to broadcast, print or otherwise disseminate content, and decisions related to authorisation or prior notification for media service providers. In order to mitigate their potential negative impact on media pluralism and editorial independence and on the functioning of the internal market for media services and enhance legal certainty, it is important that such measures minimise disruptions to the activities of media service providers and comply with the principles of objective justification, transparency, non-discrimination and proportionality. Any measures that negatively affect media pluralism, editorial independence or the operations of media service providers, including where they are related to the implementation of Union legal acts such as Directive 2010/13/EU, should be communicated to media service providers well in advance of their adoption in order to…

RemovedRecital 39: (39) It is also key that the Board is empowered to issue an opinion, on its own initiative or at the request of the Commission or the European Parliament, where national measures are likely to affect the functioning of the internal market for media services or to impact media pluralism and editorial independence. This is, for example, the case when a national administrative measure is addressed to a media service provider providing its services towards more than one Member State, or when the concerned media service provider has a significant influence on the formation of public opinion in that Member State. A media service provider individually and directly affected by such a measure should be able to request that the Board draw up an opinion on that measure.

RemovedRecital 40: (40) Media play a decisive role in shaping public opinion and enabling citizens to access relevant information for participation in democratic processes. This is why Member States should provide for rules and procedures in national law to enable a quality assessment of media market concentrations that could have an impact on media pluralism and editorial independence. Such rules and procedures can have an impact on the freedom to provide media services in the internal market and need to be properly framed and be transparent, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Media market concentrations subject to such rules should be understood as covering those which could result in a single entity controlling or having significant interests in media services which have substantial influence on the formation of public opinion, including very large online platforms carrying content provided by media service providers which control access to and the visibility of the content of media service providers in a given media market, within a media sub-sector or across different media sectors in one or more Member States. An important criterion to be taken into account is the reduction of competing views within that market as a result of the concentration. Moreover, local and regional media market players play a key role in shaping public opinion. It is, therefore, necessary to take into account the sustainability of a strong, pluralistic and well-funded local and regional media ecosyst…

RemovedRecital 41: (41) National regulatory authorities or bodies, or when appropriate self-regulatory bodies, who have specific expertise in the area of media pluralism, should be significantly involved in the assessment of the impact of media market concentrations on media pluralism and editorial independence where they are not the designated authorities or bodies themselves. In order to foster legal certainty and ensure that the rules and procedures are genuinely geared at protecting media pluralism and editorial independence, it is essential that appropriate deadlines and objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria for notifying and assessing the impact of media market concentrations on media pluralism and editorial independence be set out in advance.

RemovedRecital 42: (42) When a media market concentration constitutes a concentration falling within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/200455 , the application of this Regulation or of any rules and procedures adopted by Member States on the basis of this Regulation should not affect the application of Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. Any measures taken by the designated or involved national regulatory authorities or bodies based on their assessment of media market concentrations that could have an impact on media pluralism and editorial independence should therefore be aimed at protecting legitimate interests within the meaning of Article 21(4), third subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, and should be in line with the general principles and other provisions of Union law.

RemovedRecital 43: (43) The Board should be empowered to provide opinions on draft decisions or opinions by the designated or involved national regulatory authorities or bodies, where the notifiable concentrations may affect the functioning of the internal media market. This would be the case, for example, where such concentrations involve at least one undertaking established in another Member State or operating in more than one Member State or result in media service providers having a significant influence on formation of public opinion in a given media market. Moreover, where the concentration has not been assessed for its impact on media pluralism and editorial independence by the relevant national authorities or bodies, or where the national regulatory authorities or bodies have not consulted the Board regarding a given media market concentration, but that media market concentration is considered likely to affect the functioning of the internal market for media services, the Board should be able to provide an opinion, on its own initiative or upon request of the Commission. In any event, the Commission retains the possibility to issue its own opinions following the opinions drawn up by the Board.

RemovedRecital 44: (44) With a view to ensuring pluralistic media markets, the national authorities or bodies and the Board should take account of a set of criteria. In particular, impact on media pluralism should be considered, including notably the effect on the formation of public opinion, taking into account of the online environment. Concurrently, it should be considered whether other media outlets, providing different and alternative content, would still coexist in the given market(s) after the media market concentration in question. Assessment of safeguards for editorial independence should include the examination of potential risks of undue interference by the prospective owner, management or governance structure in the editorial decisions of the acquired or merged entity. The existing or envisaged internal safeguards aimed at preserving independence of the editorial decisions within the media undertakings involved should also be taken into account. Furthermore, the results of the Commission’s annual rule of law reports presented in the chapters on press freedom and the risk assessment carried out annually by media monitoring exercises should be considered in determining the overall climate for media and the effects of the media market concentration in question over media pluralism and editorial independence. In assessing the potential impacts, the effects of the concentration in question on the economic sustainability of the entity or entities subject to the concentration should also b…

RemovedRecital 45: (45) Audience measurement has a direct impact on the allocation and the prices of advertising, which represents a key revenue source for the media sector. It is a crucial tool to evaluate the performance of media content and understand the preferences of audiences in order to plan the future production of content. Accordingly, media market players, in particular media service providers and advertisers, should be able to rely on objective and comparable audience data stemming from transparent, unbiased and verifiable audience measurement solutions. Such solutions should comply with Union data protection and privacy rules. However, certain new players that have emerged in the media ecosystem, such as very large online platforms, provide proprietary measurement services without making available information on their methodologies. This could result in audience data that is not comparable, information asymmetries among media market players and potential market distortions, to the detriment of equality of opportunities for media service providers in the market.

RemovedRecital 46: (46) In order to enhance the verifiability, comparability and reliability of audience measurement methodologies, in particular online, transparency obligations should be laid down for providers of audience measurement systems that do not abide by the industry benchmarks agreed within the relevant self-regulatory bodies. In principle, audience measurement should be carried out in accordance with widely-accepted industry self-regulatory mechanisms. Under these obligations, such actors, when requested and to the extent possible, should provide advertisers and media service providers or parties acting on their behalf, with information describing the methodologies employed for the measurement of the audience. Such information could consist in providing elements, such as the size of the sample measured, the definition of the indicators that are measured, the metrics, the measurement methods and the margin of error, the measurement period and the coverage of measurement. Furthermore, providers of proprietary audience measurement systems should provide media service providers with anonymised data, including non-aggregated data, in an industry-standard and comparable form. Such data should be at least as granular as data from the industry's recognised self-regulatory mechanisms. The obligations imposed under this Regulation are without prejudice to the right of audiences to the protection of personal data concerning them as provided for by Article 8 of the Charter and Regulation (EU) …

RemovedRecital 47: (47) Codes of conduct, drawn up either by the providers of audience measurement systems or by organisations or associations representing them, together with media service providers, their representative organisations, online platforms and other relevant stakeholders, can contribute to the effective application of this Regulation and should, therefore, be encouraged. Self-regulatory mechanisms widely recognised in the media industry have already been used to foster high quality standards in the area of audience measurement. Moreover, such self-regulatory mechanisms, known as joint industry committees, are able to ensure that audience measurement is impartial and audience measurement data are comparable. An inconsistent take-up of such mechanisms among the Member States could negatively impact advertising. The adoption of such mechanisms should therefore be promoted at national level. The further development of self-regulatory mechanisms, including with the assistance of national regulatory authorities or bodies, could be seen as an effective tool for the industry to agree on the practical solutions needed for ensuring compliance of audience measurement systems and their methodologies with the principles of transparency, impartiality, inclusiveness, proportionality, non-discrimination, comparability and verifiability. When drawing up such codes of conduct, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders and notably media service providers account could be taken in particular of …

RemovedRecital 48: (48) Public funds for the purposes of state advertising and purchases are an important source of revenue for many media service providers, providers of online platforms and providers of online search engines, contributing to their economic sustainability. Access to such funds must be granted in a non-discriminatory way to any media service provider, provider of online platforms and provider of online search engines from any Member State which can adequately reach some or all of the relevant members of the public, in order to ensure equal opportunities in the internal market. Moreover, public funds for the purposes of state advertising and purchases from State-affiliated entities such as State-owned companies, particularly in the form of funding or purchasing goods or services, may make media service providers vulnerable to undue state influence or partial interests to the detriment of the freedom to provide services and fundamental rights. Opaque and biased allocation of public funds for the purposes of state advertising and purchases is therefore a powerful tool to exert influence on the editorial freedom of media service providers, ‘capture’ media service providers or covertly subsidise or finance politically captured media service providers to gain unfair political or commercial advantage or favourable coverage. That is why, in order to address such situations, public funds allocated for the purposes of state advertising directed by a public authority or a State-controlled…

RemovedRecital 49: (49) In order to ensure undistorted competition between media service providers and to avoid the risk of covert subsidies and of undue political influence on the media, it is necessary to establish common requirements of transparency, objectivity, proportionality and non-discrimination in the allocation of public funds for the purposes of state advertising and purchases to media service providers, to providers of online platforms or to providers of online search engines in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, including the requirement to publish information on the beneficiaries of public funds for the purposes of state advertising and purchases and the amounts spent. It is thus necessary for national regulatory authorities or bodies to monitor and report on the allocation of public funds for the purposes of state advertising and purchases to media service providers, to providers of online platforms and to providers of online search engines. Where requested by national regulatory authorities or bodies, public authorities and state-affiliated entities should provide them with additional information necessary to assess the accuracy of information published and the application of criteria and procedures used for such state public funds. It is important that the Union and the Member States make the necessary information related to public funds for the purposes of state advertising and purchases publicly accessible in an electronic format that is easy to view, access and down…

RemovedRecital 49 a (new): (49a) Emergency messages by public authorities are a necessary form of informing the general public about risks in the event of a natural or health disaster, an accident or any other sudden unforeseen, major incident that could cause harm to significant sections of the population. Emergency situations have the potential to create new or enhance existing vulnerabilities in the media sector. In that context, the allocation of State resources for transmitting emergency messages could make media service providers vulnerable to undue State influence to the detriment of fundamental rights and the freedom to provide services. While emergency situations are becoming increasingly cross-border in nature, the rules on the allocation of State resources differ from one Member State to another, creating fragmentation and legal uncertainty in the internal media market. Therefore, such allocations to media service providers, providers of online platforms and providers of online search engines should follow the same harmonised rules as those for public funds for the purposes of advertising and purchases. Nevertheless, recognising the urgency of taking measures during a crisis period, special provisions should apply in order to allow State authorities and State-owned or State-controlled enterprises and entities to comply with transparency and reporting obligations once the emergency situation has ended.

RemovedRecital 50: (50) Risks to the functioning and resilience of the internal media market, including risks of information manipulation and interference, should be regularly monitored as part of the efforts to improve the functioning of the internal market for media services. Such monitoring should aim at providing detailed data and qualitative assessments on the resilience of the internal market for media services, including as regards the degree of existing concentrations of the media market at national and regional level and the risks such concentrations pose to editorial independence and media pluralism. In order to bring clarity to market participants and allow for the monitoring of the functioning of the internal market, while assessing the impact on editorial independence and media pluralism in the Union, it is necessary that the Commission provide an objective overview on existing media market concentrations, both in terms of their contribution to the structure of the media market and to the diversity of media ownership and of their influence on the formation of public opinion in each Member State. Such monitoring should be conducted independently, on the basis of a robust list of key performance indicators, developed and regularly updated by the Commission, in consultation with the Board. Additionally, in order to facilitate the effective application of this Regulation, the Commission should establish a user-friendly alert mechanism to allow media service providers and any relevant i…

RemovedRecital 50 a (new): (50a) It is important that the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom in Leipzig and the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom at the European University Institute in Florence be recognised as having relevant expertise in media freedom and pluralism. It is also important that European instruments such as the Euromedia Ownership Monitor be taken into account when dealing with media ownership in Europe.

RemovedRecital 51: (51) The Commission should be able to take the necessary actions to monitor the effective implementation of, and compliance with the obligations laid down in, this Regulation. To prepare the ground for a correct implementation of this Regulation, its provisions concerning independent media authorities, the Board and the required amendments to Directive 2010/13/EU (Articles 7 to 12 and 27 of this Regulation) should apply 3 months after the entry into force of the Act, while all other provisions of this Regulation will apply 6 months after the entry into force of this Regulation. In particular, this is needed to ensure that the Board will be established in time to ensure a successful implementation of the Regulation.

RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 1: 1. This Regulation lays down common rules for the proper functioning of the internal market for media services, including the establishment of the European Board for Media Services (the ‘Board’), and common basic principles to serve as minimum standards, while ensuring the independence of media services.

RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 2 – introductory part: 2. This Regulation shall not affect:

RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new): (aa) competition rules, including those laid down by Regulation (EC) No 139/2004;

RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 2 – point a b (new): (ab) Directive 2001/29/EC;

RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 2 – point a c (new): (ac) Directive 2019/789/EU;

RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new): (ba) rules laid down by Directive 2010/13/EU;

RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 2 – point d: (d) rules laid down by Regulation (EU) 2022/2065;

RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 2 – point e: (e) rules laid down by Regulation (EU) 2022/1925;

RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new): (fa) rules laid down by Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a; / 1a Directive 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 17).

RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 2 – point f b (new): (fb) Directive (EU) xxx/ XXX of the European Parliament and of the Council on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (“Strategic lawsuits against public participation”).

RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 3: 3. This Regulation shall not affect the possibility for Member States to adopt more detailed or stricter rules in the fields covered by Chapter II, Section 5 of Chapter III and Article 24, provided that those rules comply with Union law.

RemovedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1: (1) ‘media service’ means a service as defined by Articles 56 and 57 of the Treaty, where the principal purpose of the service or a dissociable section thereof consists in providing programmes or press publications, or excerpts from them, to the general public, by any means, in order to inform, entertain or educate, under the editorial responsibility of a media service provider;

RemovedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2: (2) ‘media service provider’ means a natural or legal person, whose professional activity, regardless of whether, in the case of a natural person, it is exercised in a standard or non-standard form of employment, is to provide a media service and who has editorial responsibility for the choice of the content of the media service and determines the manner in which it is organised;

RemovedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3: (3) ‘public service media provider’ means a media service provider which is entrusted with a public service remit under national law or receives national public funding for the fulfilment of such a remit;

RemovedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7: (7) ‘editor-in-chief’ means a natural person or a number of natural persons possibly grouped in a body, regardless of its legal form, status and composition, that takes or supervises editorial decisions within a media service provider;

RemovedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 8: (8) ‘editorial decision’ means a decision taken on a regular basis for the purpose of exercising editorial responsibility of a media service provider;

RemovedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9: (9) ‘editorial responsibility’ means the exercise of effective control both over the selection of the programmes or the content of press publications and over their organisation, for the purposes of the provision of a media service, regardless of the existence of liability under national law for the service provided;

RemovedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new): (9a) ‘online platform’ means online platform as defined in Article 3, point (i), of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065;

RemovedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 b (new): (9b) 'online search engine’ means online search engine as defined in Article 3, point (j) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065;

RemovedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10: (10) ‘provider of very large online platform’ means a provider of an online platform that has been designated as a very large online platform pursuant to Article 33(4) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065;

RemovedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10 a (new): (10a) ‘provider of a very large online search engine’ means a provider of an online search engine that has been designated as a very large online search engine pursuant to Article 33(4) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065;

RemovedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 12: (12) ‘national regulatory authority or body’ means an authority or body designated by Member States pursuant to Article 30 of Directive 2010/13/EU;

RemovedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 12 a (new): (12a) 'user interface' means a service that provides an overview of media services provided by individual or multiple media service providers and that enables a user to select media services or applications that essentially serve to provide access to media services and to control or manage access to, and the use of, media services;

RemovedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 13: (13) ‘media market concentration’ means a concentration as defined in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 involving at least one party in the media value chain;

RemovedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 13 a (new): (13a) ‘media pluralism’ means a variety of voices, analyses and opinions in public discourse, including minority positions and opinions, disseminated in an unimpeded way by media service providers which are in the hands of many different owners, each independent from one another, across different media channels and media genres and the recognition of the co-existence of private commercial media service providers and public service media providers;

RemovedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 14: (14) ‘audience measurement’ means the activity of collecting, interpreting or otherwise processing data about the number and characteristics of users of media services and of users of online platforms for the purposes of decisions regarding advertising allocation, prices, purchases and sales, or the planning or distribution of media services;

RemovedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 14 a (new): (14a) 'proprietary audience measurement’ means audience measurement which does not follow industry standards agreed by self-regulatory mechanisms covering media service providers;

RemovedArticle 2 – paragraph 1 – point 15: (15) ‘State advertising’ means the placement, promotion, publication or dissemination, in any media service, online platform or online search engine, of a promotional or self-promotional message, normally in return for payment or for any other consideration, by, for or on behalf of any Union, national or regional public authority, such as Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, national, federal or regional governments, regulatory authorities or bodies as well as state-owned enterprises or other state-controlled entities at the national or regional level, or any local government;