The Implementation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive by National Regulatory Authorities National Responses to Regulatory Challenges

Although a comprehensive (horizontal) [7] reform of the TwFD in light of growing convergence of media was rejected in 2007 in favour of the maintenance of sector-specific regulation, the Directive’s scope of application was slightly extended to cover television and “television-like” [8] services subsumed under the term “audiovisual media service”. [9] In line with Art. 1 (1) (a) (i) AVMSD, an audiovisual media service is defined as:

a service as defined by Articles 56 and 57 of the [TFEU] which is under the editorial responsibility [10] of a media service provider and the principal purpose of which is the provision of programmes, in order to inform, entertain or educate, to the general public by electronic communications networks. [11]

Thus, audiovisual media services are further classified as television broadcasting (linear services), on-demand audiovisual media services (non-linear services) as defined in Art. 1 (1) (e) and (g) AVMSD respectively and audiovisual commercial communication as stipulated by Art. 1 (1) (a) (ii) in conjunction with Art. 1 (1) (h) AVMSD. While a VOD service may be viewed at the “moment chosen by the user and at his individual request”, [12] broadcasts are transmitted simultaneously to the general public “on the basis of a [chronological] programme schedule”. [13] The differentiation between linear and non-linear services is crucial for the application of the graduated approach to regulation. [14] Accordingly, VOD services are regulated more lightly, whereas a tighter regime applies to television broadcasting. On top of the complexities of distinguishing linear from non-linear services, further difficulties emerge when delineating audiovisual media services from other kinds of services exempted from regulation, the boundaries of which are continually blurring. [15] The preamble to the Directive clarifies that it does not apply to “any form of private correspondence”, “games of chance (…), other forms of gambling (…) and search engines”. [16] It also exempts user-generated content which is shared or exchanged “within communities of interest”. [17] Where “text-based services” (merely) accompany an audiovisual service, the Directive applies. [18] However, recital 28 AVMSD indicates that “the scope of this Directive should not cover electronic versions of newspapers and magazines”. Although the preamble to the AVMSD is, in principle, non-binding, it nevertheless serves as a valuable point of reference, particularly for NRAs when implementing and applying the AVMSD “on the ground”. [19]

In several countries, recital 28 AVMSD has moved into the limelight of regulatory activities concerning VOD services. [20] The printed press increasingly offers its services online in order to meet competition from news blogs or other websites providing text-based material. The websites of newspapers or other magazines increasingly contain videos as a popular extra in addition to written articles which are their primary business. The pertinent question arising from this phenomenon is at what point a service offering mixed types of content should be subjected to the regulation applicable to VOD services. The question hinges on the criterion of principal purpose as prescribed by Art. 1 (1) (a) AVMSD. The regulators of Austria, Denmark, the Flemish Community of Belgium, [21] Slovakia [22] and Sweden [23] have found that parts of websites of electronic versions of newspapers served the required purpose and were thus classified as stand-alone VOD services. [24] By contrast, websites of several British newspapers have been excluded as VOD services, although being the subject of intensive investigations by the competent regulatory agencies. Thus, the following section analyses in detail the decisions of the Austrian and British regulatory bodies in order to shed light on their assessment and motives.

In September 2012, the Austrian regulator, Kommunikationsbehörde Austria (KommAustria), qualified the video section of the regional newspaper “Tiroler Tageszeitung” (TT service) as an on-demand service, a determination which was upheld in December 2012 by the Austrian Bundeskommunikationssenat (Federal Communications Senate, BKS), which was the appeal instance for decisions issued by KommAustria at that time [25]. [26] The website at issue (http://www.tt.com) contained the online version of the newspaper, and its homepage brought the user to the news section by default. The content was arranged in sub-sections such as “Sports”, “Leisure”, “Video” or “Service” which were accessible via the main menu. In all categories, individual written items were accompanied by videos which served to complement the former. The video section was designed and branded in the same way as the website and also contained the same navigation tools. The videos were catalogued in chronological order, and a separate section underneath presented the most popular videos. The whole catalogue was available via certain “categories”. The videos constituted editorial content, were professionally made and typically lasted between 30 seconds and several minutes. Except for the title of the videos and a brief description of the most recent video, all material provided was audiovisual in character.

In its determination, KommAustria examined the cumulative criteria defining an audiovisual media service as stipulated by Sec. 2 No. 3 Audiovisuelle Mediendienste-Gesetz (AMD-G) which transposes Art. 1 (1) (a) AVMSD, employing similar wording. More concretely, KommAustria enquired whether the service, if covered by the AMD-G, constituted an on-demand audiovisual media service in line with Sec. 2 No. 4 AMD-G, which emulates Art. 1 (1) (g) AVMSD. If this were to be affirmed, the service provider would have been required to notify the service pursuant to Sec. 9 (1) AMD-G. The case centred around two criteria. First, KommAustria posited that the videos constituted programmes within the meaning of Sec. 2 No. 30 AMD-G, which reflects Art. 1 (1) (b) AVMSD. It points out that the notion of programmes was not based on a minimum length. [27] Rather than prescribing a quantitative requirement, KommAustria referred to the comparability to the form and content of the contested service with such programmes ordinarily shown on TV. In line with recital 24 AVMSD, KommAustria argued that the videos featured on the TT service constituted self-contained items which targeted the same audience as television broadcasts and offered comparable content in comparable form. [28] Second, KommAustria investigated the principal purpose of the video section. It found that this sub-section could be separated from the remainder of the service as it fulfilled an independent function and was not merely an accessory to the text-based materials. [29] Hence, the video section was considered a user destination in its own right and was regarded by KommAustria as a stand-alone service. Interestingly, KommAustria responded to the provider’s submission that it primarily provided written content that a service provider could not evade the application of the AMD-G simply for that reason. Even if an insignificant part (in terms of quantity) of the overall offer encompassed audiovisual content, such could nonetheless be viewed as a separate audiovisual media service within the meaning of the AMD-G. [30] It was not decisive whether the audiovisual content was grouped in a sub-section of the website even if the domain used could be indicative of the independence of the service. [31] In the appeal instance, the BKS confirmed the assessment undertaken by KommAustria in its entirety. With regards to the comparability of the videos with programmes broadcast on TV, it emphasized that the videos covered concrete subject matters. [32] Furthermore, the BKS qualified KommAustria’s position with respect to the principal purpose test. It stressed that the overall appearance of a service should be taken into account, albeit excluding other services offered by the same provider. [33] In case of TT service, the video section did not, however, merely constitute a “side effect” [34] but rather encompassed almost exclusively audiovisual content which was not of secondary or supplementary nature to the written content. The video section could thus have been consumed, used and offered independently of it being embedded in the TT service. [35] In sum, the Austrian regulatory bodies have asserted their authority over providers of websites of electronic versions of newspapers by classifying a sub-section of the entire offer as a non-linear service. They have thereby detailed two important criteria defining an audiovisual media service.

By the same token, the British co-regulator, [36] the Authority for Television On Demand (ATVOD), [37] has struggled with the legal evaluation of electronic versions of newspapers. In a series of cases which at first glance seem similar to the Austrian case discussed above, it determined that the video sections of several online versions of newspapers constituted on-demand services within the meaning of Sec. 368A Communications Act 2003 (CA 2003), [38] holding that the relevant providers had failed to notify their services. [39] The first case decided on appeal by the Office for Communications (Ofcom) was “Sun Video”, [40] which constituted a landmark decision in which Ofcom gave detailed guidance on the interpretation of the principal purpose test [41]. [42] Ofcom outlined eight (non-exhaustive and non-cumulative) characteristics from which it could be inferred that the principal purpose was indeed the provision of programmes within the meaning of Sec. 368A (1) (a) CA 2003. It was thus characteristic of an on-demand service to be provided on “its own homepage through which it is accessed” or on a sub-section where the audiovisual material is catalogued. [43] Furthermore, a service was considered to have the required purpose where the audiovisual content was “presented or styled (and marketed) as a television channel” or where there existed only a “limited number of access [or content] links between the relevant audiovisual material and other content”. [44] In addition, Ofcom suggested that the principal purpose implied that the audiovisual material was “of substantial duration and/or comprise[d] complete programmes rather than ‘bite-sized’ clips or extracts from longer programmes” which could be “watched and understood fully on [their] own”. [45] Where a service comprises both audiovisual and written material, Ofcom suggested that the principal purpose test would be satisfied where “the balance of the material is more likely significantly to lean towards the audio visual”, implying that the text-based part of the website is “brief and/or merely an introduction to, or summary of, the audio visual material” and is not the “primary means” of conveying information to the user.  [46] Ofcom concluded on the basis of these characteristics that the video section of the website of the Sun did not constitute a non-linear service. [47] It criticized ATVOD for having focused on the video section while according insufficient attention to the “website as a whole”. [48] Still, Ofcom did not refuse the application of the rules concerning non-linear services to electronic versions of newspapers per se.  [49] An interesting case which could cross this threshold is currently pending before Ofcom. In a determination of August 2013, ATVOD considered that the video section of the Vice website ( http://www.vice.com/en_uk ) was a VOD service. [50] The portal is comparable to an online version of a magazine. Its video section features the latest videos accompanied by an explanatory note as well as shows of over ten minutes in length. The website is also made available on YouTube where it appears to correspond largely to the video section. In contrast to its precedents, the case of Vice appears, to put it bluntly, “much more audiovisual”. Still, it remains to be seen whether Ofcom, which so far has rejected all attempts of ATVOD to regulate sections of websites, will follow ATVOD’s assessment.

When examined together, the practices of the Austrian and British regulatory bodies paint two opposing pictures regarding the classification of online newspapers as VOD services. Still, the reasons for the decisions and arguments brought forth by regulators are, to a certain extent, similar, like the question whether the service constituted a stand-alone service and the rejection of the application of a purely quantitative approach to determining the primary character of a service. Nonetheless, certain differences can be identified with respect to the comparability of videos to programmes diffused on TV. While videos of relatively brief duration (maximum of several minutes) were considered TV-like in Austria, it appears as if such short videos would (taken by themselves) not be conclusive of a VOD service in the UK. Knowledge about such subtle but existing differences in the practice of NRAs is crucial for service providers. Editors of newspapers who wish to make their offers available online will have to be aware of the consequences of the design and structure of their services. They will have to reckon with the potential involvement of the regulatory authorities for the media even if their activities would formally fall under press regulation. [51]

If an editor’s chief objective is to provide an online version of the printed medium, they will have to devise their websites accordingly by making sure that video content is not excessive and truly embedded in text-based material. If they plan to group the audiovisual material in a separate video section, they will have to carefully consider whether notification of a VOD is necessary. Should the application of the AVMSD or respectively the relevant national law be affirmed, operators will be obliged to abide by certain standards such as the prohibition of programmes containing incitement to hatred or the safeguarding of the protection of minors, a subject discussed below.

The protection of minors from unsuitable (e.g. offensive or sexually explicit) audiovisual content has been a constant policy concern which has been reflected in the Directive since its initial adoption in 1989. Art. 22 TwFD (now 27 AVMSD) was amended in 1997 and subsequently required broadcasters to identify programmes which were susceptible to having a damaging effect on children and adolescents and which were broadcast in un-encoded form on free TV.  [52] The extension of the scope of application of the Directive in 2007 was accompanied by the inclusion of a rule purporting to protect minors in on-demand audiovisual media services. Although Art. 12 AVMSD borrows from the wording of the provision protecting minors in broadcasts, the former is less restrictive than the latter, illustrating the graduated approach to regulation. Thus, Art. 12 AVMSD prescribes that on-demand services which “might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors are only made available in such a way as to ensure that minors will not normally hear or see [them]”. It follows that service providers are obliged to put in place the (technical) measures whereby access to seriously harmful material is denied to minors (typically under-18’s, albeit depending on national context). In line with recital 60 AVMSD read in conjunction with the Recommendation of 2006 of the European Parliament and the Council, [53] “personal identification numbers (PIN codes), filtering systems or labeling” could be employed to this effect. Art. 12 AVMSD lacks any indication as to the type of material covered by the rule. The vague formula of material which “might seriously impair” minors is nonetheless specified in Art. 27 AVMSD (applicable to television broadcasts) and could be consulted by analogy. Accordingly, programmes “that [among others] involve pornography or gratuitous violence” meet this test. In the absence of any clear correlation between Art. 12 and 27 (1) AVMSD, Member States remain entirely free to define the kind of content which is qualified as seriously detrimental to children. [54] The following section is devoted to the guidance and practice by the British regulatory bodies which seem to have assumed a pioneering role within the EU in clamouring for the strengthening of the protection of minors on the Internet.

In the United Kingdom, Art. 12 AVMSD is transposed by Sec. 368E (2) CA 2003. Sec. 368E (2) CA 2003 reproduces grosso modo the text of the Directive but is more detailed by specifying the exact age (eighteen years) of persons addressed by the rule. Since the formulation contained in the national act transposing the Directive is equally imprecise, it falls to the NRAs to interpret its exact scale and scope. ATVOD as the competent co-regulator monitors the application and implementation of the statutory rules. In order to help the industry to conform to the requirements imposed on service providers, ATVOD has accumulated in its guidance the statutory rules which are supplemented by (non-binding) guidance on their meaning and enforcement. [55] Rule 11 sets out ATVOD’s approach to the protection of minors. It highlights that ATVOD has pursued a precautionary approach which is backed by the Government and Ofcom. [56] In spite of the lack of any conclusive evidence about the harm caused to minors by programmes containing sexually explicit material, ATVOD is satisfied that there is a sufficiently strong correlation justifying precautionary measures. [57] It follows that ATVOD has established a threshold of material it considers harmful. [58] This threshold is fixed by reference to the classification scheme of the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), in particular its R18 category. The distribution of such works is restricted to “specifically licensed cinemas (…) and sex shops”. [59] According to ATVOD’s Rule 11, this includes inter alia “highly sexualized portrayals of children”, “pornographic content which is likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity” (e.g. paedophilia, incest or non-consensual sex) or “involves an act which may cause lasting physical harm”. In addition, any depiction of “sexual violence”, “sadistic violence or torture” and “real injury, violence or death presented with insufficient contextual justification” is prone to being classified as harmful material. [60] Briefly, the type of material covered by Rule 11 is summarized bluntly as “hardcore pornography”. [61] Since such content is not completely banned, providers of non-linear services are obliged to limit access to persons of age. In this respect, ATVOD requires that an “effective Content Access Control System (“CAC System”)” is installed “which verifies that the user is aged 18 or over at the point of registration or access” of the service. [62] In practice, unsuitable content is concealed behind a “pay wall” which can be passed by payment methods which are restricted to persons of age (such as payment by credit card). [63] ATVOD considers permissible similar means which corroborate age on the basis of “an independent and reliable database, such as the electoral roll”. [64]

Throughout the past years, ATVOD has proven a robust regulator by rigorously enforcing Rule 11. In fact, it seems to have prioritized the protection of minors in on-demand services, a subject which is repeatedly discussed in its policy documents. [65] The number of violations detected by ATVOD between 2012 and 2014 underlines this impression. Between 2012 and 2014, it has found 30 UK providers in violation of Rule 11 and thus Sec. 368E (2) CA 2003. [66] The effect of its determinations is declaratory. ATVOD may, in cases of grave and repeated infringements, refer the matter to Ofcom for imposition of sanctions pursuant to Sec. 368I CA 2003. [67] In January 2013, Ofcom imposed a total fine of £100,000 on the service provider Playboy TV UK/Benelux Limited for two of its services. [68] ATVOD had previously determined that its services “Demand Adult” and “Playboy TV.co.uk” violated Rule 11 by failing to install an effective CAC system. [69] The two websites displayed a warning about the offensive character of the content offered next to two links reading “Enter. I am over 18” and “Exit if you are under 18”. Following the links brought the user to the respective homepages. The “Demand Adult” website even contained free access to stills of a pornographic nature while access to the full video catalogues of both services was opened only upon payment (either pay per view or full subscription). The payment services (“Pay Wizard” and “CCBill.com”) allowed for debit card payment and transfers via regular bank accounts and thus could be used by underage persons. Hence, ATVOD concluded that the measures designed to restrict access to under-18’s could be “easily penetrated by minors and therefore could not be regarded as being effective in securing that such persons will not normally see or hear the relevant material”. [70] Ofcom, in its decision, sanctioned the provider for failing to take corrective action (after being made aware of its negligence by ATVOD) during a prolonged period of roughly seven weeks. [71] The service provider had instead informed ATVOD of its “intention to remove the service from UK jurisdiction”. [72]

The question of whether the service provider was established in the UK for the purpose of Sec. 368A in conjunction with Sec. 368R (5) CA 2003 (and implicitly the AVMSD) was treated separately. While ATVOD regarded Playboy TV UK/Benelux Limited to control editorial decisions (in other words, to have “editorial responsibility”, one of the cumulative criterion defining an audiovisual media service), [73] Ofcom, by contrast, consented that the provider had relocated to Montreal, Canada, and therefore was no longer (as of September 2012) subject to UK jurisdiction as a “genuine reorganisation [had occurred] including redundancies in the UK and the taking on of responsibilities by staff in Montreal”. [74] Although Ofcom ruled on the matter, ATVOD remains discernibly distrustful of providers establishing abroad (outside the EU) in order to evade stricter legal requirements applicable in the UK (in the EU). Such “tube sites” offer free hardcore pornographic material as honey pots (or “shop windows”) [75] in order to attract users’ attention, which is subsequently redirected to complementary paid services necessitating subscription. Interestingly, such websites are very popular with British users [76] but they have been anathema to ATVOD, which does not have jurisdiction over them for their lack of establishment in the UK.

Against this backdrop, ATVOD published a research report which found evidence of “significant underage access from the UK to adult websites”. [77] For this reason, it recommended that, first, the CA 2003 be amended to specify that material rated R18 would be characterized as impairing minors; second, the AVMSD be modified accordingly to establish a uniform standard across the Union; and third, further legislation be devised to allow the UK payments industry to prevent cash flows from the UK to tube sites making available pornographic content to minors. [78] ATVOD’s suggestions, while proactive and innovative, also raise a number of concerns regardless of the validity of the underlying objective of the protection of minors. Any specification of the type of content which is considered seriously harmful to children would have to rely on solid and more profound scientific evidence than the statistics included in ATVOD’s report. [79] The metaphor of a “slippery slope” [80] could also be conjured up in this respect, whereby the explicit prohibition of hard-core pornographic content is viewed as a first step leading to the banning of less extreme forms of sexually explicit material in the future. Such a development would seriously impact the fundamental right of the freedom of expression. In a similar vein, a modification of Art. 12 AVMSD as desired by ATVOD seems doomed to failure in view of considerable discrepancies in cultural and social perceptions among Member States as reflected in the different national classification systems and rating schemes concerning programmes broadcast on TV. In addition, any amendment referring to “hard-core pornography” (or the like) would still be contingent upon interpretation by NRAs and ultimately national (or the European) judiciaries.

Furthermore, ATVOD’s lobbying for new legislation to attack the business model of “tube sites” by cutting off monetary flows from the UK seems disputable as it would implicitly extend ATVOD’s reach beyond UK borders. In fact, ATVOD would pass on the task of regulating the protection of minors to the private sector, in particular to commercial actors like Visa, MasterCard or PayPal. For the purpose of the prevention of payments, it is unclear whether providers of such systems would have to enquire about the nature of the content delivered to the user as they typically only process the financial transaction without any knowledge about the actual product or service purchased. It is furthermore unclear at what point of the transaction access to the (pornographic) service would be blocked: at the time of the request for payment (when it is verified that the credit card holder has sufficient credit to purchase a product or service) or at the time of the actual payment (when the total amount owed is deducted from the account). Moreover, it is unclear whether any UK citizen would be denied access to such websites, even those of age, despite the material being legal (albeit rated as R18). Whether legislation will eventually be adopted in the UK and to what extent will have to be critically observed. The protection of minors as an indispensable public interest concern would nonetheless have to be balanced with fundamental rights, above all, the freedom of expression (entailing the right to receive pornographic information) as well as the right to privacy. In brief, ATVOD’s practice and policy documents discussed above underline its active role in promoting the protection of minors in on-demand services. In interpreting the (broadly formulated) statutory rules, it has developed a standard through its practice which seems sufficiently detailed for service providers to foresee prosecution by ATVOD. It has thereby strengthened its own position and standing in the industry. Still, the transformation of its standards into binding legislation would have to be accompanied by an increase in transparency of the underlying motives and objectives pursued as well as an analysis of the necessity and proportionality of the measures in order to minimize interference with the interests of stakeholders, in particular fundamental rights. The example chosen above is exemplary of many NRAs that struggle to adapt national media legislation to the realities of the ubiquity of the Internet, [81] where long-established standards (like the protection of minors) for traditional modes of transmission have come under pressure. [82]

As with the protection of minors, the promotion of the production and distribution of European works on television has been a policy concern that was integrated in the original TWFD of 1989. It required that broadcasters dedicate a certain share of their programmes to European works and support the programmes of independent producers by financial or editorial means. [83] Unlike the protection of minors, an objective seemingly approved of by all Member States, the aims and in particular the means whereby the cultural objectives of plurality and diversity of content have been advanced under the Directive have polarized countries. Not only is the definition of European works [84] broad and prone to favouring national language films or those produced nationally rather than stimulating the cross-border circulation of multi-national works, [85] the wording of the Directive is ambivalent and rather soft. [86] When its scope of application was extended, the imprecise language of the provisions applicable to broadcasting (Art. 16 and 17 AVMSD) was replicated in the provision concerning VOD services (Art. 13 AVMSD). Thus, Art. 13 (1) AVMSD encourages providers of on-demand services to “promote, where practicable and by appropriate means, the production of and access to European works”. The phrase “where practicable and by appropriate means” stems from the quota rules for broadcasting and expresses a “political compromise”. [87] In order to gain a majority for the inclusion of the dispositions in the Directive, they were formulated in such a way as to give service providers, especially smaller and less solvent providers, some leeway with regards to their fulfilment.

Furthermore, Art. 13 (1) AVMSD indicates that promotion may refer to “the financial contribution made […] to the production and rights acquisition of European works or to the share and/or prominence of European works in the catalogue of programmes”. Recital 69 AVMSD is only marginally more specific by pointing to the “attractive presentation of European works in electronic programme guides” as a form of support envisaged by Art. 13 AVMSD. Still, the rationale of the TWFD and its television quotas was extended to the online environment. This has been criticized as the user bears ultimate control over the content consumed and selects the programmes which cater to his or her tastes (regardless of the fact that a catalogue comprises a majority of European works). [88]

Not surprisingly, the Commission found in its first report on the application of Articles 13, 16 and 17 AVMSD of September 2012 that in spite of the success of the well-established quotas, the proportions of which have been outdone in many Member States, the transposition and above all enforcement of Art. 13 AVMSD in national legal orders has been restrained and is more problematic. [89] The Commission also noted fundamental discrepancies in conditions and developments of the market for VOD services [90]. Policy makers and national regulators appear hesitant, pursuing a “wait and see” [91] approach in order not to stifle innovation of a nascent industry and allow providers to build attractive online offers appealing to large parts of the public. Still, some countries which have traditionally hoisted the “quota flag” for TV have fervently advocated for efficient enforcement of comparable rules for non-linear services. While a conventional approach is applied in France, [92] an innovative solution focusing on enhancing “prominence” has been sought by the regulatory body of the French Community of Belgium. [93] In addition, the Dutch approach to monitoring shall serve as an example underlining the pragmatism necessary for the enforcement of this provision.

Art. 13 AVMSD is transposed by Art. 12 of the French Décret relatif aux services de médias audiovisuels à la demande (VOD Decree 2010), [94] which stipulates that providers reserve 60 percent for European works and 40 percent for French works from the total number of programmes included in the catalogue. [95] Interestingly, French works are considered European works for the purpose of the quotas. If one were to deduct the support for French works (assuming that all providers meet the target for French works and do not go beyond the threshold set for European works) from the overall goals, the support for European works appears rather insignificant or at least weak in comparison to the protection afforded to the national film industry. Yet the definition of European works set out in Art. 1 (1) (n) AVMSD does not require a cross-border element (like co-productions) but is deliberately open to accommodate national productions stricto sensu. Above all, Art. 13 VOD Decree 2010 specifies that service providers are to permanently present a substantial proportion of the quota on their homepage. To this effect, the Decree explicitly indicates that the mentioning of the title of the work on the home page is not sufficient. Instead, providers are expected to advertise the relevant works (by banner ads, for example) and display trailers or samples. This rule aims at preventing the burying of European and French works in sub-sections of the website by enhancing their visibility on the primary destination of users, providers’ homepages.

In its report about the application of the Decree published in November 2013 and drafted on the basis of consultations with stakeholders, the French regulatory authority, the Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel (CSA, hereinafter French CSA) identified difficulties providers encountered in the practical application of the quota rules. The responses by the French CSA are worthwhile with a view to the immediate application and enforcement of the rules in practice as well as potential amendments to the legislative framework. [96] Thus, the French CSA clarified that the quota was applied on an annual basis, allowing providers to derogate (even if minimally) from the strict proportions and front page presentations. [97] Above all, the French CSA acknowledged the restrictiveness of Art. 13 VOD Decree exclusively focusing on the homepage of providers which, in fact, constitutes only one access point for users. Hence, it proposed the recognition of separate sections or buttons dedicated to European and French works, search tools by origin of productions and promotional activities of providers. [98] The Commission, in its staff working document accompanying the report on the application of Art. 13, 16 and 17 AVMSD, also referred to these criteria when enumerating “performance indicators” which Member States could take into account when interpreting and specifying the obligations for providers pursuant to Art. 13 AVMSD. [99] Interestingly, the French CSA highlighted the increasing significance of recommendation tools. On the basis of personal data, an algorithm is programmed which recommends audiovisual productions to individual users according to their personal preferences and interests and/or previous behaviour and consumption patterns. The French CSA thus advocated their use for the purpose of promoting European and French works in case of websites offering the possibility to personalize the homepage. [100] Yet French providers seemed little enthused about the integration of a ‘European or French factor’ into their algorithms, arguing that the biasing of the algorithm/software would infringe on their editorial freedom and the neutrality of the recommendation tool. [101] Such instruments also raise more general questions about the collection of personal data and their use, and any tracking of user behaviour should be made transparent (by asking the user to consent). The fact that the French CSA proposed to restrain the ‘European and French recommendation tools’ to personalized homepages (and negated them for standardized homepages), which are in any case based on users’ data (voluntarily or so it is assumed) given to the provider, does not solve the data protection issue. Finally, the French CSA rejected the introduction of exemptions for “non-generalist” services. [102] Arguing that a general exception would undermine the quota scheme, the French CSA nonetheless conceded that a VOD could target only a segment of the public and could cater specifically to that segment. It agreed to propose a relaxation of the quota obligations in compensation for providers’ commitment to offer additional services to the European and French works diffused, such as the sub-titling or funding for the promotion and their production or the participation in events and shows. [103] Such derogations would presumably have to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. The French CSA’s outright refusal to recommend to the French government the formulation of an exception clause to Art. 12 VOD Decree demonstrates the high value the quota rules have had in France and the regulator, as the guardian of the rules, is unwilling to sacrifice them in view of less generalist service providers. This picture is confirmed when globally assessing the legislative and executive framework in France. The VOD Decree has extended the well-established scheme for broadcasting to VOD services. Some reflections about the nature of non-linear services are nonetheless expressed in Art. 13 VOD Decree, though these are limited to the homepages of providers. In order to guarantee the application of the rules in practice, the French regulator made some compromises in its report, allowing for other ways and “places” (like sub-pages) to promote European and French works and exceptions to the quota obligations to be negotiated on an individual basis.

In contrast to the rather rigid legal order in France, the regulatory authority of the French Community of Belgium, the Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel (CSA, hereinafter Belgian CSA), [104] has actively shaped the interpretation of the disposition contained in the Decret coordonné sur les Services de Médias Audiovisuels (hereinafter AVMS Decree), allowing for a flexible and innovative approach. In the French Community, Art. 13 AVMSD is transposed by Art. 46 AVMS Decree. Art. 46 AVMS Decree is more specific than the Directive by indicating that the list of European and Belgian (produced in the French Community of Belgium) works included in the catalogues should be attractively presented. The French Community thus used the leeway accorded by the Directive, selecting “prominence” as the primary means of promotion while refraining from establishing a quota scheme or soliciting investments from VOD providers. The proposal of the AVMS Decree of January 2009 strongly criticized the transfer of the quota regime from linear to non-linear services for its devastating effect on the development of new services and innovative business models. [105] Instead, it advocated for all kinds of promotional techniques, including advertisements screened on provider’s homepages or during TV commercials, the creation of special categories and the reference to such works in magazines, feature articles or communications sent to its users. [106] Against this background, the Belgian CSA published a recommendation in June 2010 on the interpretation of Art. 46 AMVS Decree, going beyond what was provided in the preparatory documents of the AVMS Decree. [107] Hence, the regulator emphasized that the provider can influence the conditions of access to European and Belgian works by the interface of the website. Thus, access by buttons entitled “European films” or “films of the French Community” facilitates the visibility of such works, according to the Belgian CSA. In this respect, the regulator pointed out that the works should be included in multiple categories to allow users to find them coincidentally and avoid collating such programmes in one place on the website. [108] Thus, a substantial number of these works should be presented in categories like “new releases”, “last chance”, “great classics” or “favourites” which frequently guide users through the vast amount of content available. [109] In addition, the Belgian CSA proposed to include the works in categories for which discounts were offered as long as the films were not devalued. [110] With respect to providers’ advertising activities, the Belgian CSA suggested to refer to European or Belgian works, events, production teams or actors in all commercial communications available, including magazines, special editions or channels or programmes devoted to self-promotion. [111]

These guidelines [112] are very detailed and set out precise requirements for providers. The structuring of the catalogue in parallel to other promotional activities advocated by the CSA in its recommendation appears reasonable for its low level of intrusiveness with providers’ editorial freedom. [113] In addition, the costs of promotion remain bearable, even if such measures are not entirely gratuitous as providers might find themselves investing in advertising spots for European works which they would otherwise not have promoted. In a similar vein, the promotion of European or Belgian works “is not detrimental to viewer numbers” [114] but instead enhances the attractiveness of the overall offer. Since catalogues may comprise an infinite number of programmes (figuratively speaking), providers do not have to make any trade-offs like broadcasters would have to do when determining the slot when a programme is scheduled for transmission. In 2011 and 2012, the Belgian CSA conducted three evaluations of the implementation of its recommendation, thereby maintaining close contact with the providers established in the French Community (Belgacom, VOO and Universciné). [115] It found in its opinion of June 2012 that the interface of the websites was not necessarily controlled by providers, some of which relied on recommendation tools based on pre-determined algorithms or other mechanisms like alphabetical listings of programmes. [116] The Belgian CSA underlined the importance of recommendation tools without, however, going so far as the French CSA in demanding that the systems should account for European or national works. [117] It concluded that European and Belgian works were accessed from video platforms to an “acceptable” proportion. [118] Yet the Belgian CSA seemed to struggle with the establishment of a firm causal link between the measures taken to increase visibility and the consumption of the promoted works, inferring that further qualitative studies were necessary to that effect. [119]

Finally, the supervision of Art. 13 AVMSD as implemented in national legal orders encompasses a reporting obligation pursuant to Art. 13 (2) AVMSD. In order to monitor the progress and effectiveness of the rules, Member States are to provide reports to the Commission, which in turn allows the latter to assess the EU-wide application of Art. 13 AVMSD in line with its third paragraph. The Directive does not lay down concrete reporting methods and thus leaves Member States a margin of discretion as long as the general aim is abided by. The Commission in its first report on the application of Art. 13, 16 and 17 AVMSD stressed that “effective monitoring” was crucial for the success of the rules and called on Member States to establish monitoring systems which verified providers’ reports. [120] The question is how to construct an effective reporting mechanism as the systematic and permanent oversight of providers’ catalogues is virtually impossible and unnecessary for the implementation of the provisions contained in the Directive. From the perspective of service providers, burdensome and costly collections of data and their quantification and evaluation could be a factor influencing business decisions and could, potentially, deter providers from locating in a specific country. It seems that a relationship of trust which facilitates cooperation is beneficial for the cultural objective sought here. The reporting method selected by a Member State (or its regulatory body) may equally reflect market conditions like the number of VOD providers subject to its regulatory remit and the precise tools employed for ensuring compliance with Art. 13 (1) AVMSD. [121]

In this respect, the Dutch regulator, the Commissariaat voor de Media (CvdM) devised a form at the beginning of 2013 (CvdM reporting form). The CvdM reporting form includes instructions to service providers specifying the obligations imposed by Art. 3.29 Mediawet 2008 (Media Act) [122] which corresponds to Art. 13 (1) AVMSD almost to the letter. [123] Accordingly, service providers pick a representative day and report on the amount of European works as well as the investments (such as production or licensing costs) made in such programmes.  [124] Above all, a third section of the reporting form is devoted to the “findability” [125] of European works, asking whether the user can search for European works (whether the origin of productions is indicated), whether tools have been developed which recommend relevant works, whether a specific section devoted to European productions has been created or whether any other instruments are used to reinforce the visibility of and access to European works. [126] These indicators are broadly reminiscent of those set out in the Recommendation of the Belgian CSA and are considered “easy to apply in practice and likely to provide good insight in the actual performance of media service providers”. [127] The drafting of a reporting form by the CvdM appears to be a pragmatic solution which results in a higher degree of uniformity of responses by service providers and thus facilitates the comparability of the data provided. It avoids “high administrative burdens or time-consuming exercises” [128] for both parties, the service providers as well as NRAs. To this end, the reporting form seems to constitute a useful and proportionate method. In order to meet the Commission’s request for verification, providers could supply screen shots of their catalogue or disclose parts of their finances as far as confidentiality is guaranteed. Still, rigid reporting regimes appear problematic where the effectiveness of promotional measures is questionable and the market is volatile and evolving. In sum, the discussion above demonstrates how the NRAs of France, Belgium and the Netherlands have impacted the implementation of Art. 13 AVMSD, each at different ‘stages’: while the French CSA clarified certain aspects of the detailed legislative framework in a report on the application of the legislative instrument, the Belgian CSA issued specific guidance on the wide notion of prominence and the Dutch CvdM outlined indicators in its reporting form for providers. They thus helped to form the national legal frameworks and enhance legal certainty for providers.

Yet divergences of regulatory practice exist. These may be attributed to, among others, the vagueness of the provisions set out in the AVMSD. To some extent, Directives are characterized by the construction of broad concepts which may be flexibly applied in all Member States. As instruments of secondary Union law, they lay down the rules of the game (by establishing minimum standards, for instance) while Member States fill in the details. It is, however, hardly constructive if the players of the game do not know whether they are playing football or hockey. In other words, the scope of a Directive should be based on solid footing. The first section of this paper demonstrates that the application of the AVMSD has become instable in light of converging media such as the printed press and the audiovisual industry. Several NRAs found that the national media laws (and thus implicitly the AVMSD) applied to a specific section of online versions of newspapers. Recital 28 AVMSD, which uncompromisingly exempts online newspapers from the scope of the Directive, will have to be revisited if the AVMSD is opened for revision. In the second section this paper draws attention to the implementation of the rule concerning the protection of minors in VOD services. NRAs are confronted with business models geared to selling sexualized content which is classified by NRAs as harmful to minors if a certain threshold is passed. This section raises not only questions as to the kind of content considered unsuitable but also wider questions of jurisdiction and how this concept should be construed to account for a globalized society and the Internet age. [130] Due to the imprecise language of the provision set out in the AVMSD, NRAs enjoy a considerable margin of discretion, provided that the national legislature has refrained from specifying the law. The same holds true for the implementation of the rule purporting to promote European works in non-linear services as examined in the third section of this paper. It indicates that the rationale and logic underlying the quota regime for TV broadcasting has necessitated an adaption with regards to VOD services. The examples referred to above reveal just a glimpse of the diverse activities of the NRAs of EU Member States. They hint at the importance of certain standards (like the protection of minors or the support for European works) for certain Member States and thus supposedly reflect the attitudes and public opinions of their peoples.

Today, the phenomenon of Connected TV merging previously separate media which are differently regulated constitutes a major challenge which will have to be tackled in the future. This topic is multi-faceted and not restricted to the AVMSD as the only relevant legal instrument. Indeed, it affects standards like consumer protection (such as the protection of minors) or cultural values (like the promotion of European works) set out in the AVMSD, but it is also linked to data protection (such as behavioural advertising and profiling) and telecommunications law (such as infrastructure and interoperability). It has become evident that the current tiers of rules prescribed by the AVMSD are insufficient to deal with converging services. As a response to market developments, NRAs which operate under the present legal framework have shaped the audiovisual sector by regulation rather than waiting for new legislation which would be accompanied by lengthy negotiations at the European level. They have thus ensured legal certainty and contributed to the flowering of audiovisual media services within the European Union.