DNPA to push for fair revenue sharing with tech giants ahead of India's Digital India Bill 2023

The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) is advocating a fair revenue-sharing mechanism with big tech companies like Google and Meta, hoping to secure a fair revenue share from them. The move aligns with international practices, such as Australia's News Media Bargaining Code (NMBC), which mandates tech giants to pay local news publishers for content hosted on their platforms.

The DNPA's call comes in anticipation of India's Digital India Bill 2023, designed to replace the existing Information Technology Act of 2000 and address contemporary digital challenges like cybercrime, data protection, and online safety. The Bill introduces a risk-based classification system for intermediaries and proposes the establishment of a dedicated internet regulatory authority.

However, news publishers in India are seeking more comprehensive provisions, similar to international models. DNPA is hoping for a bargaining code within the Digital India Bill, ensuring them a fair share of revenue generated by tech companies through the hosting of news content. Currently, India lacks legislation or policies concerning fair revenue-sharing with digital publishers.

"DNPA has been making efforts to sensitise the policy makers and other stake holders about the various facets of revenue loss that is taking place for the Digital News Publishers due to anti trust practices of big tech and the the current opacity of big tech in sharing the same information Rapidly increasing use of AI tools to create news using the content of News publishers, without publishers being adequately compensated, are also a fresh concern for all of us," said Sujata Gupta, secretary general, DNPA.

"An absence of appropriate frame work to deal such challenges and the monopolistic practices of big tech are complicating the things for all of us. DNPA is confident that Government would make a holistic framework for all the sectors to grow in a fair manner, both the news publishers and the big tech," she added.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has been drawn into the fray. Not just DNPA, but the News Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA) and the Indian Newspaper Society (INS) jointly lodged a complaint with the CCI earlier this year. Their grievance pertains to Google's perceived conditions related to revenue-sharing agreements and questionable practices in advertisement intermediation services, among others.

What are the global best practices?

Two years ago, Australia introduced the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code, compelling digital giants like Facebook and Google to negotiate with news media for content payments. Failure to reach agreements would grant the Australian government the authority to enforce deals.

Before the law was rolled out, the big tech firms did their best to have their way. Google cautioned users about its potential impact on search functionality. Simultaneously, Facebook threatened to block news content on its platform in Australia. Following the law's passage, Facebook did indeed implement the ban. However, with amendments in place later, the law was made flexible, prompting Facebook and Google to strike deals with multiple news organisations in the country.

Cut to Canada

As per data from a Canadian government website, online advertising revenues in Canada reached $14 billion in 2022, with approximately 80 percent of these earnings being concentrated on just two major platforms. This stark contrast between the vast profits of digital platforms and the continual closure of news outlets is primarily attributed to the decline in advertising revenue.

To address this issue, Canada has introduced the Online News Act, which is designed to ensure that dominant online platforms provide fair compensation to news organisations whose content is featured on their services.

The Act establishes a structured framework for negotiations, encouraging these platforms to engage in voluntary commercial agreements with various news entities. In the event that mutually agreeable terms cannot be reached independently, the Act mandates a mediated bargaining process. Should mediation prove unsuccessful, each party involved is required to submit a final offer, following which an arbitral panel is responsible for selecting one of the two proposed offers.