The European Media Freedom Act is now fully applicable across the European Union, marking one of the bloc’s most ambitious attempts to safeguard media independence, pluralism, and journalistic freedom.
The regulation entered into force last August and sets rules to protect journalists from political interference and spyware, while it reinforces the independence and accountability of national media regulators. It also boosts transparency in media ownership and state advertising, strengthens safeguards for public service media, and introduces new obligations for online platforms. At its core is Article 18, which sets up a structured dialogue between platforms, media outlets, and civil society on how independent journalism is handled online.
Yet as the EMFA (European Media Freedom Act) moves from law to practice, concerns are growing about uneven implementation, political resistance in some capitals, and whether national authorities are ready to shoulder their new responsibilities.
To understand where implementation stands and what challenges lie ahead, EU Perspectives spoke with Maria Luisa Stasi, Director for Law and Policy on Digital Markets at ARTICLE 19, an international freedom of expression organisation.
You might be interested
From an EU-wide perspective, how would you assess the implementation of the European Media Freedom Act now that it is fully in force?
It’s very difficult to give a straightforward answer, because we’re talking about a very complex regulatory framework that touches on many different topics. Member states are in very different positions. Some already had rules covering certain aspects of the EMFA, while others are much further away and need structural changes to their national frameworks, including changes to authorities’ mandates.
It was never realistic to expect full implementation in the first couple of weeks or months. We all knew this would take much longer. In some countries, the national framework was already relatively close to the new EU rules. In others, it is very far away.
What we are seeing now is quite fragmented. Scholars and researchers are starting to put together comparative case studies across member states, which is extremely valuable. What we usually hear in the news, however, are the problematic cases about where things don’t work, and that can be for many different reasons. It might concern media ownership rules, the independence of authorities, or how media mergers are assessed under the new plurality test.
Looking across the EU in a systematic way is a complex exercise, but it’s an exercise we really need.
Early national responses
Are there any concrete examples of how member states are responding to the EMFA?
It really depends on where you look. Italy, for example, is trying to review its system for appointing public service broadcaster board members, because the current national rules don’t necessarily comply with the independence criteria introduced by the Media Freedom Act.
In the Netherlands, there was a recent media merger where the authority applied a media plurality test inspired by the EMFA, even though the regulation was not yet formally applicable. They used existing competition tools in a more progressive way.
In Poland, there is a lot of discussion around public service media financing and the impact this has on editorial independence. So there are signs of movement, but it’s very uneven.
What I do see as a general trend is that some topics are much more problematic than others. These are the areas where implementation doesn’t just require legal changes, but also political willingness.
Which EMFA provisions do you expect to be the most challenging for member states?
Public service media is an obvious one. Media mergers are another. Transparency obligations for media service providers are also tricky, because right now we have a real patchwork across Europe. Harmonisation here is absolutely needed.
State advertising is another area that has always been politically sensitive. Then there’s the independence, accountability, and expanded powers of national media authorities. These are the provisions where I expect the greatest difficulties.
And then there is Article 4 on spyware. From what I can see, and I say this cautiously, there was a moment a few months ago when spyware and journalist safety were widely discussed. But since then, not much has happened.
Spyware protections don’t necessarily require major institutional reforms. But they do require clear guarantees and a careful interpretation of exceptions linked to national security and public interest. – Maria Luisa Stasi, ARTICLE 19
That worries me, because these safeguards should be in place immediately. Spyware protections don’t necessarily require major institutional reforms. But they do require clear guarantees and a careful interpretation of exceptions linked to national security and public interest. How narrowly or broadly those exceptions are interpreted will make a huge difference to the level of protection journalists actually enjoy.
One concern has been whether national media authorities are prepared for their new responsibilities. Are they?
It really depends on what you mean by “prepared”. In theory, every member state has a media regulator. But the level of independence (political, functional, and economic) varies enormously.
Some authorities are severely understaffed and underfunded. Their budgets are fragile, which makes them vulnerable to political pressure. This is not a new problem. Independence and accountability were already requirements under the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, but we can’t honestly say that directive delivered the results many hoped for.
The difference now is that the EMFA is a regulation, not a directive. It is directly applicable. But it doesn’t create individual rights that journalists can easily enforce in court. It sets up an institutional framework that requires political willingness from governments to change how regulators are appointed, funded, and protected.
In that sense, the EMFA is the strongest signal we’ve had so far. You cannot meaningfully protect media freedom if your regulator is not independent.
Hungary’s legal challenge
Hungary has openly opposed the EMFA and is challenging it in court. What message does this send?Hungary has rejected the Media Freedom Act from the very beginning. Even when it was just a proposal, they argued that media law is a national competence and that the EU has no role in regulating it. They questioned the legal basis, claiming this is not an internal market issue and has nothing to do with cross-border concerns.
They were clear from the start that they would appeal, and then they did. Legally speaking, I don’t think they have a strong case. Article 114 of the Treaty has been used many times to advance harmonisation, even when this affects national systems. Ultimately, that’s how the EU develops.
What Hungary is doing is taking a very strict interpretation of EU competences and using it to attack the entire regulatory framework. That’s not unusual in itself. But here, it’s part of a broader pattern.
Impact on journalism on the ground
Are journalists and media organisations beginning to use the EMFA on the ground?
It’s still very much a work in progress. What I have noticed is that journalist associations are becoming more aware of the rights and guarantees provided by the Media Freedom Act.
A year or two ago, most journalists focused mainly on spyware protections or the so-called media exemption under Article 18. Now, there’s a broader understanding of the regulation as a whole. – Maria Luisa Stasi, ARTICLE 19
That said, it’s very difficult for individual journalists to enforce these rights. Going to court is costly and risky. Large media organisations might do it, but local journalists and small outlets are already struggling economically. Expecting them to lead implementation through litigation is unfair. The real responsibility lies with governments and parliaments.
Brussels priorities for 2026
Looking ahead, what should be the European Commission’s top priorities regarding the EMFA?
I hope that if we have this conversation again in six months or a year, the picture will look different. Ideally, we will have several good examples of member states that have completed implementation and put meaningful safeguards in place.
The European Board for Media Services needs to issue guidelines, especially on Articles 18 and 22, as soon as possible. These “soft law” instruments will be crucial for national implementation.
We also need transparency. Right now, it’s very unclear who is implementing what and how far along they are. A living, comparative mapping of EMFA implementation, similar to the Media Pluralism Monitor, would be incredibly powerful. Transparency creates pressure. It enables journalists, researchers, activists, and politicians to tell stories, compare progress, and demand action. Without that visibility, implementation risks drift.
