The EU’s digital regulatory landscape is undergoing a period of significant transformation. Amidst the rollout of major legislation such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) remains a critical, sector-specific pillar. Recent Draft Council Conclusions signal key directions for its upcoming review, and businesses in the media and tech sector should pay close attention.
1. Setting the stage: a crowded regulatory picture and the Council’s steer
The European Union is actively reshaping the rules for the digital economy. The AVMSD, historically the cornerstone of EU audiovisual policy, is not being sidelined but is set for re-evaluation. Its first revision in 2018 brought Video-Sharing Platforms (VSPs) into its ambit and established the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA), soon to be succeeded by the European Board for Media Services (the so-called “Board”) under the EMFA.
Now, another revision of the directive is on the way: On 13 May 2025, the Council released its draft conclusions on the assessment of the legal framework for audiovisual media services and video-sharing platform services. These conclusions, while not legally binding on the European Commission, carry substantial political weight and outline the likely focus areas for the Commission's mandated AVMSD evaluation, due by late 2026. The Council aims to foster a “fact-based discussion” before any legislative proposals, but the themes identified already provide a clear roadmap for businesses.
Why this matters: For broadcasters, on-demand services, VSPs, content creators (including influencers), advertisers, and tech providers, the AVMSD review will shape the future competitive and regulatory environment in Europe. Understanding its trajectory is vital for strategic planning, investment, and compliance.
2. Key directions from the Council: What’s likely to change?
The Council conclusions reaffirm the AVMSD's role as the main legal framework of audiovisual regulation, complementing horizontal rules like the DSA. Several key areas are flagged for scrutiny:
- Scope and definitions – the influencer question: A primary concern is ensuring the AVMSD’s scope remains “adaptable” and wide and clear enough to cover all relevant types of audiovisual media content and services. The Council explicitly calls for an analysis of whether current definitions adequately cover services from “specific groups of content creators on VSPs (often referred to with terms such as 'influencers' or 'professional content creators')”. This reflects existing Recital 3 AVMSD, which suggests that services on VSPs can themselves be AVMS if under a provider's editorial responsibility.
The traditional concept of editorial responsibility is being tested, and the review may explore new criteria for applying AVMSD-like rules, potentially broadening its reach significantly. For VSPs, they might need to rethink how they monitor, moderate, and advertise content from a wider group of creators. For individual creators, it could mean new rules they haven't had to follow before.
- Protection of minors: Enhancing the protection of minors from harmful content remains a top priority of the European Commission, with calls to examine if existing rules are adequate given evolving market realities and changing consumption habits and to improve cross-border cooperation.
The AVMSD is seen as a complementary instrument to the DSA by providing specific rules applicable to providers of all sizes and determining audiovisual content that is harmful to minors. Any company providing video content or platforms where such content is shared will likely face even more increased scrutiny regarding their diligence in implementing and enforcing protective measures for minors.
- Video-Sharing Platforms (VSPs) – balancing obligations: The Council acknowledges VSPs as “prominent players” who, despite lacking editorial responsibility under the AVMSD, have “decisive influence on the curation, presentation and visibility of that content”. This competitive impact on traditional AVMS providers, who face different obligations, is a central concern of the Council.
This suggests that the Commission may explore imposing more AVMS-like obligations on VSPs, for example in relation to advertising and the promotion of content of general interest, also considering concurrent challenges posed by disinformation and (other) harmful content on those platforms.
- 'Country-of-origin' principle: The Council's assessment also reaffirms support for maintaining the so-called “country of origin principle”. This fundamental rule in the AVMSD allows media service providers to operate under the jurisdiction of their home Member State. This contributes to stability for cross-border operations across the EU.
However, the tension between the country-of-origin principle (favoured by pan-European platforms) and country-of-destination investment obligations (supported by some Member States and cultural stakeholders to fund local content) is set to be a central fight in the upcoming review. Legal challenges, such as those brought by Netflix and Disney in Belgium against local investment quotas, underscore this.
- Interplay with other EU Laws: Further, the Council stresses the need for legal clarity and coherence between the AVMSD, DSA, E-Commerce Directive, and the EMFA. The balance between subsidiarity, Member State competence in cultural policy, and internal market objectives also remains a delicate issue, potentially impacting the extent of future harmonisation.
3. Industry perspectives: a spectrum of concerns and demands
Key industry stakeholders have weighed in, revealing diverse priorities:
- Commercial Broadcasters (ACT) welcome the call for thorough analysis, viewing the AVMSD as “largely effective” but in need of updates, especially on advertising rules, to ensure a level playing field with VSPs and influencers. They advocate for the review to be a simplification exercise and stress the need for regulatory stability. Further, traditional broadcasters are pushing for an easing of “rigid commercial communication rules”.
- Public Service Media (EBU) view the AVMSD as a vital sector-specific framework. A key focus is the prominence of general interest media services to combat disinformation and ensure media pluralism, arguing Member States must retain powers to ensure their visibility.
- Tech industry (CCIA Europe & DigitalEurope) emphasizes upholding the country-of-origin principle and calls for harmonized rules on prominence and financial contributions, expressing concern about extending these to VSPs. DigitalEurope echoes the need to reinforce the single market, simplify regulations, address overlaps (e.g., with DSA), and harmonise online minor protection rules, arguing existing laws are often sufficient if enforced.
- Consumer organisations (BEUC) call for the prioritization of enhanced online child protection, in particular regarding safe by design and by default settings, a ban on surveillance advertising to minors, and rules to tackle addictive design and influencer marketing of harmful products.
- European Audiovisual Observatory highlights that defining services is crucial, as this determines applicable rules. They question how advertising regulation should evolve for influencers and how coherence across AVMSD, EMFA, and DSA can be achieved.
The call for simplification and consolidation is a common thread, but interpretations vary. Broadcasters seek an easing of restrictions, while the tech industry aims to reduce regulatory overlap and expresses concerns about further scope extensions. The Council's assessment priorities may, however, lead to more, or at least clarified, rules.
4. Regulatory roadmap ahead: What should businesses do?
The Draft Council conclusions serve as a key preparatory document, outlining the areas of concern and potential focus for the Commission's formal review and any subsequent legislative initiatives for audiovisual media. Article 33 AVMSD requires that the Commission must submit an ex-post evaluation of the Directive's impact and added value by 19 December 2026. This evaluation will be accompanied, where appropriate, by proposals for its review.
The coming months will likely see continued discussions and expert input as the Commission prepares for this 2026 milestone. Therefore, businesses should consider adopting a proactive stance:
- Engage and advocate: Participating in consultations and industry dialogues to ensure your business's practical concerns and perspectives are considered.
- Scenario planning: Assessing the potential impact of various regulatory outcomes on your operations, from stricter influencer rules to altered investment obligations.
- Review internal policies: Proactively reviewing policies on minor protection, advertising transparency (especially influencer marketing), and content classification.
- Monitor national developments: Monitoring how Member States interpret and enforce both existing and any new AVMSD rules.
- Seek coherence: Advocating for greater coherence between the AVMSD and other EU digital regulations (DSA, EMFA, etc.) to minimize compliance burdens.