European Commission
Audiovisual media services – evaluation and update of EU rules
Directive 2010/13/EU — commonly referred to as the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) — was amended by Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018. AVMSD establishes EU-wide coordination of national legislation covering audiovisual media services, including television broadcasts and on-demand services, as well as video-sharing platforms (VSPs). The AVMSD remains the longstanding foundation of Europe’s audiovisual content legislation. It fosters an internal market for audiovisual media services, strengthening competitiveness of the sector, protecting viewers from illegal and harmful content and supporting a free and pluralist media environment. It also supports European content creation, guaranteeing that audiovisual service providers active in the EU contribute fairly to the diversity and vitality of our cultural ecosystem.
Currently, the Commission is undertaking an evaluation of the AVMSD and its implementation and is working on the proposal for its review, as required by AVMSD, planned in the Commission work programme for 2026 (CWP), and also highlighted as a key action in the European Democracy Shield. As noted in the CWP, traditional media are struggling, which poses a grave threat to our democracy. At the same time, simpler regulation will help unlock innovation, investment and job creation. In this context, the Commission will consider the relevance of the current rules of the Directive and assess whether they are still fit for purpose, taking into account the developments in the EU audiovisual media market, in particular the increasing access by viewers to audiovisual media content online, the new distribution technologies and the entry and/or growing importance of new players, notably influencers.
The objective of this public consultation is two-fold: i) to gather experiences and views on the current AVMSD and its implementation; ii) to gather feedback and/or assess the feasibility for potential options for its review.
The consultation is structured along the following main areas of the AVMSD:
• Section I – Scope and enforcement
• Section II – Audiovisual commercial communications
• Section III – Protection of viewers
• Section IV – Strengthening media diversity in the internal market
The public consultation is open to all stakeholders. We welcome contributions from Member State authorities (e.g. ministries, national regulatory authorities), companies and industry associations (e.g. public and commercial broadcasters, video-on-demand (VoD) service providers, video-sharing platform (VSP) providers, producers, advertisers, connected TV manufacturers and user interface providers etc.), user and consumer
Question I agree with the personal data protection provisions
Section 1: General overview
* Question To what extent are you familiar with the AVMSD?
Answer
To a large extent
To some extent
To a small extent
Not at all
I do not know
Section 2: Scope and enforcement
Definitions
Explanation: Article 1 provides definitions of key terms related to the audiovisual sector that determine the scope of the Directive, for example, “audiovisual media service”; “video-sharing platform service”; “programme”; “user-generated video“, etc. Article 1 does not include a definition of influencers.
* Question to what extent do you think that the existing definitions of the AVMSD are still accurate and relevant in light of the latest market and technological developments (e.g. increasing role of video-sharing platforms and on-demand services), entry of new players (such as influencers) and shift of viewers towards the digital environment?
Answer
To a large extent
To some extent
To a small extent
Not at all
I do not know
Question If possible, please explain your answer and provide specific examples.
Influencer definition
Explanation: The AVMSD already applies to influencers when their activities are covered by the definition of “audiovisual media service” and they can therefore qualify as media service providers. However, the Directive does not explicitly mention or define influencers. This has created legal uncertainty and fragmented regulatory approaches at national level. Furthermore, other EU legislation, such as the Digital Services Act, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising Regulation, also contain rules applicable to influencers, irrespective of whether they qualify as media service providers.
Question In your opinion, is it sufficiently clear that the current AVMSD includes influencers in its scope, despite the fact that their activities are not explicitly covered in the legal definition of “audiovisual media service”?
Answer
Yes
No
I do not know
Question With regard to a possible clarification of the status of influencers under the AVMSD, what would be your preferred option?
Answer
Maintaining the status quo. While influencers are not explicitly defined as “media service providers” in the AVMSD, it is sufficiently clear that influencers are included in its scope when their activities meet the criteria of the current “audiovisual media service” definition.
Answer
Explicitly mentioning the provision of audiovisual content by influencers under the current definition of ‘audiovisual media service’ when a number of specific criteria, e.g. concerning revenues, followers, etc, are fulfilled.
Answer
Considering influencers as a separate category of audiovisual content providers, in addition to media service providers and video-sharing platform providers, with its own definition and targeted obligations.
Answer
Other, please specify:
Question With regard to the AVMSD rules applicable to influencers, what would be your preferred option?
Answer
Maintaining the status quo. Under this approach, all the AVMSD rules are applicable to influencers.
Answer
Determining which AVMSD rules are applicable to influencers. This approach would clarify the specific AVMSD rules that should apply to influencers.
Answer
Other, please specify:
Question What concrete rules and accompanying measures, if any, would you support?
Answer
Clear disclosure/labelling requirements concerning content provision in exchange for any consideration, either money or in-kind, as part of the AVMSD transparency obligation for advertising, product placement and sponsorship.
Answer
Demonetization of undisclosed provision of content in exchange for consideration, either money or in-kind, as part of the AVMSD measures to be taken by VSPs.
Answer
Clear disclosure of financing from Member State’s authorities, including public funds for state advertising, and financing from third country authorities, including advertising revenues received from them.
Answer
Union codes of conduct on professional standards.
Answer
Other, please specify:
Answer
None.
European Works definition
Explanation: According to Article 1(1)(n) of the AVMSD, European works are defined as
• Works originating in Member States;
• Works originating in European third States party to the European Convention on Transfrontier Television of the Council of Europe;
• Works co-produced between the Union and third countries.
When, for the first two points, they fulfil certain conditions related to, among others, the place of establishment of the producer, the control of the production and the contribution to the production costs.
Question In your view, to what extent is the current definition of European works (see Article 1(1)(n)) fit for purpose to achieve the objectives of the AVMSD, in particular as regards supporting European cultural diversity and promoting European audiovisual content?
Answer
Fully fit for purpose
Largely fit for purpose
Partially fit for purpose
Not fit for purpose
I do not know
Question If possible, please explain your answer and provide specific examples:
Question What changes, if any, would you suggest to the definition of European works to better support cultural diversity, European identity and audiovisual production in the EU?
Question What accompanying verification or monitoring arrangements, if any, would you suggest? (such as verification of origin of co-productions by media regulators, guidance on verification by the Media Board, databases of European works)
Jurisdiction and enforcement
Explanation: Article 2 of the AVMSD provides that audiovisual media service providers fall under the jurisdiction of the Member State where the provider is established (i.e. country-of-origin principle). There are different criteria to establish jurisdiction, especially in case the formal establishment alone does not bring a clear result, in particular:
• Member State where the editorial decisions are taken;
• Member State where most of the workforce involved in the pursuit of the programme-related audiovisual media service activity operates;
• Member State where satellite uplink is located or Member State that granted satellite capacity.
Article 28a of the AVMSD establishes that a video-sharing platform provider falls under the jurisdiction of the Member State where the provider is established following the rule of the E-Commerce Directive (i.e. country-of-origin (COO) principle). Where no such establishment exists, the following criteria apply to determine jurisdiction:
1. Member State where the parent undertaking or a subsidiary of the VSP provider is established;
2. Member State where another undertaking of its group is established.
Article 3 of the AVMSD ensures that Member States cannot restrict retransmissions on their territory of audiovisual media services from other Member States. Yet, Member States can provisionally derogate from this principle under certain conditions and following a multi-step procedure, if those audiovisual media services contain incitement to violence or hatred, put at risk the protection of minors, or are a threat to public security and/or health.
Article 4 of the AVMSD establishes that Member States may adopt more detailed or stricter rules. They can derogate from the principle of country-of-origin under certain conditions and following a multi-step procedure, if a media service provider targets their territory but it has established itself in another Member States in order to circumvent such stricter rules.
Article 4a states that Member States are to promote forms of co-regulation and to encourage self-regulatory practices through the adoption of national codes of conduct and that Member States and the Commission may foster self-regulation through Union codes of conduct.
Article 5 requires audiovisual media service providers to make certain basic information easily, directly, and permanently accessible to users. Information includes name, geographical address, contact details, jurisdiction assignment. Paragraph 2 allows Member States to introduce laws requiring media service providers to make additional information publicly accessible, specifically details about their ownership structure, including beneficial owners.
Question To what extent do you agree with the following statements concerning the AVMSD provisions on jurisdiction and enforcement?
To a large extent
To some extent
To a small extent
Not at all
I do not know
The AVMSD is sufficiently clear and effective to determine jurisdiction (Arts. 2, 28a).
The existing derogation procedure from the country-of-origin principle is sufficient and effective in practice (Art. 3).
The current anti-circumvention procedure is sufficient and effective for addressing situations where action against a service not established but targeting a Member State may be necessary (Art. 4).
Member States have effectively encouraged the use of co-regulation, self-regulatory practices and related codes of conduct (Art. 4a).
Media service providers make the required information accessible to users (Art. 5).
Question If possible, please explain your answer and provide specific examples.
Interplay with other EU law, in particular the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD)
Explanation: The Digital Services Act (DSA), as the horizontal legal framework applicable to online intermediaries including video-sharing platforms, interacts with and complements certain existing rules of the AVMSD, in particular Article 28b, that apply to video-sharing platforms. Questions have arisen as to the interplay between the horizontal framework of the DSA and the sector-specific framework of the AVMSD and the potential need to bring more clarity to the EU legal framework. In November 2025, the Commission published a Report on the application of Article 33 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (DSA) and the interaction of that Regulation with other legal acts, including the AVMSD (COM(2025) 708 final).
Question In your view, how clear is the interplay between Article 28b AVMSD and the DSA in the areas listed below?
To a large extent
To some extent
To a small extent
Not at all
I do not know
Protection of minors referred to in Articles 28b(1)(a) and (3) AVMSD and Article 28 DSA on online protection of minors.
Audiovisual commercial communications rules applicable to VSPs referred to in Article 28b(2) AVMSD and Article 26 DSA on advertising on online platforms.
Protection from harmful/illegal content through terms and conditions referred to in Article 28b(3)(a) AVMSD and Article 14 DSA.
Protection from harmful audiovisual commercial communications through terms and conditions referred to in Article 28b(3)(b) AVMSD and Article 14 DSA on terms and conditions.
Reporting and flagging mechanisms referred to in Article 28b(3)(d) AVMSD and Article 16 DSA on notice and action mechanisms.
Feedback mechanisms referred to in Article 28b(3)(e) AVMSD and Article 17 DSA on statement of reasons.
Availability of out-of-court dispute resolution mechanisms referred to in Articles 28b(7) and (8) AVMSD and Article 21 DSA on out-of-court dispute settlement.
Systemic risk-related obligations referred to in Articles 28b(1) and (3) AVMSD and Articles 34 and 35 DSA on risk assessment and mitigation of risks.
Question If possible, please explain your answer and provide specific examples:
Question What would be your preferred approach to improve clarity on the interplay between Article 28b AVMSD and the DSA?
Answer
Maintaining the status quo, I consider that the links are clear enough.
Answer
Adopting EU guidelines clarifying the interplay between the DSA and the AVMSD, on the basis of the Report published in the context of Article 91(1) DSA
Answer
Amending the AVMSD to streamline the interplay with the DSA.
Answer
Other, please specify:
Question In your opinion should the coordination between the two enforcement frameworks, of the AVMSD and the DSA, be improved (e.g. through increased information sharing mechanisms or through dedicated cooperation mechanisms?
Answer
Yes
No
I do not know
Explanation: The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) interacts with, and complements, certain existing rules of the AVMSD. As safety net legislation, the UCPD applies to practices of all traders in business-to-consumers relations protecting consumers against misleading and aggressive practices. In case of conflict between the UCPD and more specific EU legislation (lex specialis) such as the AVMSD, the latter prevails. This is relevant in particular concerning the AVMSD rules on protection of minors from harmful content included in audiovisual commercial communications and also concerning the AVMSD rules on of transparency audiovisual commercial communications.
Question In your view, how clear is the interplay between the AVMSD and the UCPD in the areas listed below?
To a large extent
To some extent
To a small extent
Not at all
I do not know
Protection of minors e.g. direct appeal to children to buy products or services
Rules on influencer marketing e.g. clear disclosure of content provision in exchange for consideration, either money or in-kind
Question If possible, please explain your answer and provide specific examples.
Question On the interplay between the AVMSD and the UCPD, what would be your preferred approach?
Answer
Maintaining the status quo
Answer
Adopting EU guidelines clarifying the interplay
Answer
Amending the AVMSD and/or the UCPD to specify the interplay
Answer
Other, please specify
Question In your opinion should the coordination between the two enforcement frameworks, of the AVMSD and the UCPD, be improved (e.g. through increased information sharing mechanisms or through dedicated cooperation mechanisms)?
Answer
Yes
No
I do not know
Regulatory authorities
Explanation: The European Board for Media Services (“the Media Board”) has replaced and succeeded the previous European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) which was set up under Article 30b AVMSD. The Media Board has been established by Article 8 of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). The Media Board is an independent advisory body composed of national regulatory authorities or bodies aiming to promote the effective and consistent application of EU media law, including the EMFA and the AVMSD.
Question In your experience, to what extent has the European Board for Media Services ('Media Board, previously ERGA) been effective in promoting the consistent and effective application of the AVMSD?
Answer
To a large extent
To some extent
To a small extent
Not at all
I do not know
Question If possible, please explain your answer and provide specific examples.
Section 3: Audiovisual commercial communications
Explanation: Article 9 of the AVMSD establishes rules that audiovisual commercial communications need to comply with (e.g. being readily recognisable as such and not using subliminal techniques; not prejudicing respect for human dignity; not including or promoting any discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, nationality, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation; not encouraging behaviour prejudicial to health or safety; limitations to the advertising of certain products such as alcohol or medicinal products; special protection for minors) and which apply to all media service providers, including influencers, and also to video-sharing platforms according to Article 28b. Articles 10 and 11 establish certain requirements for audiovisual media services providers concerning product placement and sponsorship. Articles 19-26 establish additional rules, including quantitative limits, concerning only television advertising.
To what extent do you consider that the following provisions on audiovisual commercial communications have effectively protected viewers against inappropriate, hidden or excessive audiovisual commercial communications?
Question Requirements for all AVMS providers
To a large extent
To some extent
To a small extent
Not at all
I do not know
Qualitative requirements (Article 9) - e.g. audiovisual commercial communication shall be readily recognisable as such, not use subliminal techniques, not prejudice respect for human dignity, not include or promote any discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, nationality, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, etc.
Rules on sponsorship (Article 10)
Rules on product placement (Article 11)
Question Requirements for TV advertising and teleshopping only
To a large extent
To some extent
To a small extent
Not at all
I do not know
Quantitative limits on television advertising and teleshopping (Articles 20 and 23)
Rules for TV advertising and teleshopping (Articles 19-25)
Question Requirements for video-sharing platforms
To a large extent
To some extent
To a small extent
Not at all
I do not know
Rules on commercial communications for VSPs (Article 28b(2))
Question If possible, please explain your answer and provide specific examples.
Question With regard to the AVMSD rules on audiovisual commercial communications, please select your preferred option:
Answer
Maintaining the status quo
Answer
Self-/co-regulation or guidance: this option would entail self-/co-regulatory codes of conduct or guidance by the Media Board to address in a granular way harmful or sensitive commercial communications that are not regulated specifically by the AVMSD, such as those for dietary advice or supplements, plastic surgery or aesthetic treatments.
Answer
Revising the AVMSD
Question Based on your experience or knowledge, do you have concerns related to stricter or more detailed national rules on commercial communications?
Answer
Yes
No
I do not know
Question Based on your experience or knowledge, do you have concerns related to online platforms acting as gateways to media content though distribution agreements and general terms and conditions, including (advertising) revenue-sharing agreements.
Answer
Yes
No
I do not know
Question In your opinion, is there a need for any mechanisms to ensure the financial sustainability and fairness of those agreements for media service providers and, consequently, the diversity of content on offer?
Answer
Yes
No
I do not know
Section 4: Protection of viewers
Rules relating to incitement to violence or hatred, public provocation to commit a terrorist offence (Article 6), protection of minors on media services (Article 6a) and on video-sharing platforms (Article 28b)
Explanation: Article 6 of the AVMSD establishes an obligation for Member States to ensure that audiovisual media services do not contain any incitement to violence or hatred and/or public provocation to commit a terrorist offence. Article 6a includes provisions to protect minors from harmful content (content which may impair their physical, mental or moral development). Article 28b specifically addresses VSP services, requiring them to take appropriate and proportionate measures to protect minors from harmful content referring to Article 6a, as well as the general public from certain types of programmes and user-generated videos, partly repeating the list of Article 6.
In your opinion, to what extent are the provisions under the AVMSD (Article 6, 6a and 28b) effective in protecting viewers, specifically against the following types of content?
Question Protection by audiovisual media services
To a large extent
To some extent
To a small extent
Not at all
I do not know
Content inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or members of a group (referring to the grounds mentioned in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)
Public provocations to commit terrorist offence
Content impairing the physical, mental, or moral development of minors
Content most harmful to minors, such as gratuitous violence and pornography
Question Protection by video-sharing platforms
To a large extent
To some extent
To a small extent
Not at all
I do not know
Content inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or members of a group (referring to the grounds mentioned in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)
Public provocations to commit terrorist offence, child pornography, racism or xenophobia
Content impairing the physical, mental, or moral development of minors
Content most harmful to minors, such as gratuitous violence and pornography
Question In your view, what is the most appropriate option for addressing risks resulting from the proliferation of harmful content and for protecting minors on VSPs within the scope of the AVMSD?
Answer
Maintaining the status quo: no changes to the rules on harmful content on VSPs.
Answer
Introducing further specific categories of harmful content on VSPs to account for content with a potential negative impact on children’s physical, mental or moral development, including their health, in addition to the category of content most harmful to minors, such as gratuitous violence and pornography
Answer
Other, please specify:
Question Article 28b requires VSPs to put in place measures to protect minors from harmful content. To that end, it allows VSPs a degree of flexibility in selecting which measures to put in place. These include age verification mechanisms, parental controls, content rating and reporting and flagging mechanisms. In your view, what would be your preferred regulatory approach to ensure that the measures effectively protect minors from harmful content?
Answer
Maintaining the status quo: no changes to the rules on measures for VSPs (allowing them flexibility in selecting measures).
Answer
Making certain measures mandatory depending on the harmfulness of content: This option would entail requiring VSPs to mandatorily put in place one or more of the measures depending on how harmful the content is.
Answer
Other, please specify:
Question In your opinion, is there a need for the standardisation of content rating and/or labelling across the EU for VSPs and/or audiovisual media service providers, e.g. through an EU-wide industry-led content rating and labelling system or a European repository of content rating indicators, age labels and content descriptors?
Answer
Yes, please specify:
No
Question In your view, are there any other measures that should be put in place to protect minors from harmful content online within the AVMSD?
Answer
Yes, please specify:
No
Accessibility (Article 7)
Explanation: Article 7 mandates EU Member States to progressively enhance media accessibility for persons with disabilities, requiring a designated contact point, accessible emergency information, regular reporting, and encouraging accessibility action plans.
Question In your view, since the adoption of the AVMSD accessibility rules, to what extent do you consider that the measures taken by media service providers in your country have been effective to improve the accessibility of their services for persons with disabilities?
To a large extent
To some extent
To a small extent
Not at all
I do not know
Public service broadcasters
Commercial broadcasters
On-demand audiovisual media service providers
Question If possible, please explain your answer and provide specific examples.
Right of reply (Article 28)
Explanation: Article 28 ensures that natural or legal persons whose legitimate interests have been damaged by incorrect factual statements in television programmes have a right of reply. Member States must guarantee that this right is exercised effectively, promptly, and in a manner proportionate to the harm caused.
QuestionTo what extent do you consider that the current right of reply in television broadcasting, as set out in Article 28, is effective?
Answer
To a large extent
To some extent
To a small extent
Not at all
I do not know
Question If possible, please explain your answer and provide specific examples.
Media literacy (Articles 28b and 33a)
Explanation: Article 33a of the AVMSD establishes that Member States shall promote and take measures for the development of media literacy skills and report about their implementation to the Commission. Article 28b establishes the provision of effective media literacy measures and tools among the measures to be adopted by video-sharing platforms.
To what extent do you consider that measures taken by media market players under the current provisions on media literacy (Art. 28b and Art. 33a) are effective for the achievement of the following objectives?
Question By audiovisual media services
To a large extent
To some extent
To a small extent
Not at all
I do not know
Protection of minors
Promotion of trustworthy media content
Combating disinformation
Question By video-sharing platforms
To a large extent
To some extent
To a small extent
Not at all
I do not know
Protection of minors
Promotion of trustworthy media content
Combating disinformation
Question Please provide examples of measures that have been effective or ineffective and explain why.
Question With regard to the development of media literacy skills in the online environment, please select your preferred policy option:
Answer
Maintaining the status quo: Keep the current provision under Article 28b, which requires video-sharing platforms, among other appropriate measures, to provide for effective media literacy measures and tools and raise users' awareness of those measures and tools.
Answer
Guidance for VSPs: This approach would entail a non-binding guidance for VSPs concerning measures to be taken, while keeping the current provision under Article 28b.
Answer
Minimum specific obligations for VSPs: This approach would entail the introduction of AVMSD-related minimum specific media literacy obligations for VSPs, such as implementing tools or features to improve media literacy or providing age-appropriate content guidance, in addition to measures foreseen under Article 35 DSA as regards VLOPs.
Answer
Other, please specify:
Question With regard to the reporting obligation of Member States on the implementation of the media literacy provision, please select your preferred policy option:
Answer
Maintaining the status quo: This approach would maintain the current obligation according to which Member States have to report on media literacy measures they have taken, without any standardisation of reporting tools.
Answer
Standardisation of Member States’ reporting: This option would entail a standardised approach for Member States’ reporting under Article 33a, for example through the use of digital tools and harmonised templates.
Answer
Other, please specify:
Section 5: Strengthening media diversity in the internal market
Signal integrity (Article 7b)
Explanation: Article 7b of the AVMSD states that Member States shall take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure that audiovisual media services provided by media service providers are not, without the explicit consent of those providers, overlaid for commercial purposes or modified.
Question In your opinion, to what extent has this provision been effective in protecting the integrity of the content of audiovisual media service providers?
Answer
To a large extent
To some extent
To a small extent
Not at all
I do not know
Question If possible, please explain your answer and provide specific examples.
Prominence of Audiovisual Media Services of general interest (Article 7a)
Explanation: Article 7a of the AVMSD states that Member States may take measures to ensure the appropriate prominence of audiovisual media services of general interest. This is possible under defined general interest objectives such as media pluralism, freedom of speech and cultural diversity.
Question In your opinion, to what extent is the current regulatory framework within the AVMSD effective in ensuring prominence of audiovisual media services of general interest?
Answer
To a large extent
To some extent
To a small extent
Not at all
I do not know
Question Do you consider that audiovisual media services of general interest are sufficiently visible and easily accessible via the user interfaces commonly used to access such services, for example smart TVs, or via video-sharing platforms?
Yes
No
I do not know
Smart TVs
Video sharing platforms
Question If possible, please explain your answer and provide specific examples.
Question In view of the objectives to safeguard media pluralism, freedom of speech, cultural diversity, media sustainability, and coherence with the European Media Freedom Act, do you consider that prominence rules would be needed also for non-audiovisual media services, such as audio (radio and podcast) and press publications?
Answer
No
Yes, for audio services
Yes, for press publications
Yes, for both
Question In your opinion, is there a need for any mechanisms to ensure prominence of content produced by media services of general interest in the context of recommender systems or news feeds of platforms and user interfaces?
Answer
Yes
No
I do not know
Question If possible, please explain your answer and provide specific examples.
Question With regard to this provision, please indicate your preferred policy option:
Answer
Maintaining the status quo - keeping the adoption of prominence measures as an option for Member States without specific EU rules or guidance.
Answer
Guidance - keeping the adoption of prominence measures as an option for Member States while adopting EU guidelines on their implementation.
Answer
Optional prominence measures with some harmonised elements: While some elements of the prominence obligations (e.g. addressees, technical measures, jurisdiction) would be harmonised at EU level for those Member States that decide to introduce such measures, others would be left to Member States’ decision. EU delegated/implementing acts or the Media Board could provide additional details
Answer
Optional prominence measures under a harmonised framework: Most elements of the prominence obligations, including the criteria for specifying the media services to be given prominence, as well as monitoring and enforcement arrangements, would be harmonised at EU level for those Member States that decide to introduce such measures
Answer
Mandatory prominence measures with some harmonised elements: Prominence measures would be mandatory for all Member States, and certain elements of the prominence obligations (e.g. addressees, technical measures, jurisdiction) would be harmonised at EU level, while others would be left to Member States’ decision. EU delegated/implementing acts or the Media Board could provide additional details.
Answer
Mandatory prominence under harmonised framework: Prominence measures would be mandatory for all Member States. Most elements of the prominence obligations would be harmonised at EU level
Answer
Other, please explain:
Promotion of European works (Articles 13, 16, 17 and 18)
Explanation: In application of Article 13(1) of the AVMSD on-demand audiovisual media service providers must secure at least a 30% share of European works in their catalogues and ensure prominence of those works.
In application of Articles 16-18 of the AVMSD, broadcasters must reserve at least 50% of their transmission time for European works, and at least 10% of their transmission time or of their programming budget to European independent productions.
Article 13(2) of the AVMSD allows Member States to extend their financial contribution schemes to audiovisual media service providers that are established in other Member States but target audiences in their territories, if such obligations are proportionate and non-discriminatory.
Question Do you agree with the following statements regarding the impact of AVMSD provisions on the promotion of European works? (Articles 13, 16, 17 and 18)
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I do not know
The requirement for on-demand services to secure at least a 30% share of European works and ensure their prominence (Art. 13(1)) has been effective in promoting cultural diversity.
The requirement for broadcasters to reserve a majority proportion of transmission time for European works effectively promotes European content (Art. 16(1)).
The requirement to reserve at least 10% of transmission time or programming budget for independent European works effectively supports independent production (art. 17).
The national financial contribution schemes have effectively contributed to support the production of European works.
Question If possible, please explain your answer and provide specific examples.
Transmission of cinematographic works only as agreed with rightsholders (Article 8)
Explanation: Article 8 requires Member States to ensure that media service providers do not transmit films outside the periods established with rights holders.
Question To what extent is the requirement that media service providers respect agreed release windows for cinematographic works still relevant in practice?
Answer
To a large extent
To some extent
To a small extent
Not at all
I do not know
Question Are there any challenges or issues related to the implementation of this obligation (e.g., negotiations with rights holders, enforcement difficulties, market impacts etc)?
Major events (Article 14)
Explanation: Article 14 enables each Member State to take measures to ensure that broadcasters under its jurisdiction do not broadcast on an exclusive basis events which are regarded by that Member State as being of major importance for society in such a way as to deprive a substantial proportion of the public in that Member State of the possibility of following such events.
Question In your opinion, to what extent the provisions of the AVMSD on events of major importance for society (Art. 14) have been effective in ensuring wide access by the public to the events of major importance for society?
Answer
To a large extent
To some extent
To a small extent
Not at all
I do not know
Question Do you consider that the current rules on the determination and justification for the list of major events (Article 14) are adequate?
Answer
Yes, fully adequate
Largely adequate
Partially adequate
Not adequate
I do not know
Question If possible, please explain your answer and provide specific examples.
Question In your view, how could the AVMSD deal with events of major importance under Article 14 in the future:
Answer
Maintaining the status quo
Answer
Revising the AVMSD
Short news reports (Article 15)
Explanation: Article 15 establishes that Member States shall ensure that, for the purpose of short news reports, any broadcaster established in the EU has access on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis to events of high interest to the public which are transmitted on an exclusive basis by a broadcaster under their jurisdiction.
QuestionDo you consider that the current provision on short extracts (Article 15) is still relevant and necessary in the current digital media environment?
Answer
Yes, fully relevant and necessary
Largely relevant
Partially relevant
Not relevant
I do not know
Section 6: Conclusions
Question Please feel free to elaborate on your response and/or add further objectives for a possible reform.