- Introduction
Article 6(1) and (2) of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) outline obligations related to the disclosure of media ownership information. These obligations are grounded in the overarching principle of transparency and, in line with Recital 32 EMFA, they aim at revealing who owns, is behind and controls the media. This information serves multiple purposes: it acts as a prerequisite for forming well-informed opinions, limits the risk of interference with editorial independence, contributes to an open and fair market environment, and enhances trust and accountability in the media vis-à-vis recipients of media services.
The provisions of the two paragraphs of Article 6 EMFA serve also two different dimensions of transparency: the civic dimension, also named as downwards transparency, according to which the information disclosed is scrutinized by the civil society, investors and the general public; and the administrative dimension – or upwards transparency (Craufurd Smith et al., 2021) – which relates to the disclosure of information to regulatory bodies and the government in general (Figueira & Costa e Silva, 2023).
- Obligations under Article 6(1)
Pursuant to the principle of transparency, Article 6(1) requires media service providers to make the ownership information listed in points (a) to (d) easily and directly accessible to their audience. This list includes not only basic information such as legal names and contact details of media service providers (letter ‘a’) but also the identity of direct or indirect owners with shareholdings that enable them to influence the operation and strategic decision-making, including ownership by a state or public authority or entity (letter ‘b’). It also covers beneficial owners as defined by Directive 2015/849 (letter ‘c’) and the total annual amount of public funds allocated for state advertising, along with the total annual advertising revenues received from third-country public authorities or entities (letter ‘d’).
2.1 Material scope
Disclosure of legal names and contact details is not new for audiovisual media services and online media providers, as it is required by Article 5(1) of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (Directive 2018/1808) and Article 5 of the E-commerce Directive (Directive 2000/31/EC). Furthermore, the possibility introduced by Article 5(2) of the AVMSD has led some Member States to enact laws requiring additional disclosure obligations for audiovisual media service providers regarding beneficial ownership. However, for other types of media service providers, such as print media, this obligation is likely to be entirely new, except for similar requirements in some Member States (Cole & Etteldorf, 2024, p. 20). This is corroborated by data collected in the 2025 edition of the Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM, 2025), which indicates that only 10 EU Member States had media laws establishing ownership disclosure obligations for all media service providers, not just audiovisual ones. This includes Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovenia and Slovakia.[1] Therefore, to ensure a coherent application of the EMFA, it is crucial that all Member States require all types of media service providers, as defined by Article 2(2) EMFA, to comply with the ownership-transparency disclosure obligations laid down in Article 6(1).
2.2 Territorial scope
EMFA does not contain an explicit reference to the territorial scope of the rule: if based on the country of origin or establishment and/or the country of destination of services to determine which media service providers are subject to the disclosure obligations established by Article 6 EMFA. In the former case, foreign providers offering media services in the EU or targeting EU citizens would also fall under this obligation. The reference to Article 56 TFEU in Article 2(1) EMFA indicates that the principle applicable is the country of establishment (Cole & Etteldorf 2024), following the same principle applicable to the AVMSD. In any case, for the same reason of ensuring a consistent application of the rule, it would be important that the European Board of Media Services (EBMS), supported by the European Commission (EC) confirms this approach issuing guidelines on the territorial scope of the regulation to avoid differing interpretations across Member States.
2.3 Understanding and making effective the obligation under Article 6(1) EMFA
Recital 32 EMFA states more specifically that recipients of media services should have up-to-date media ownership information at their disposal, «in particular at the time they view, listen to or read media content, so that they can put the content in the right context and form the right impression of it.» It further clarifies that «[…] the required information should be disclosed by the relevant media service providers in an electronic format, for instance on their websites, or another medium that is easily and directly accessible.»
Considering that recitals in European Union law are purposive and often used to interpret a norm (Klimas & Vaičiukaitė, 2008, p. 15), read in conjunction with Recital 32, Article 6(1) EMFA should be interpreted as requiring media service providers to directly disclose the ownership information listed in letters ‘a’ to ‘d’ to their audience. This means ownership information must be available to the recipients at the same time they are consuming the news, whether in print or online (for example, in a newspaper or on a website). This is precisely why EMFA establishes two separate disclosure obligations under Articles 6(1) and 6(2) which pursue different objectives: the former relates to downward transparency and the latter to upward transparency.
At this stage, there are still no opinions from the EBMS or guidelines of the EC on how Article 6(1) EMFA should be interpreted. One of the challenges of adopting this interpretation of direct disclosure by media service providers to their audience of all elements listed in Article 6(1) EMFA is the argument raised by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on Joined Cases C-37/20 and C-601/20. The Court declared invalid point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 30(5) of the Anti-Money Laundering Directive requiring Member States to ensure that information on beneficial ownership is accessible to the general public, on the basis that it could potentially interfere with fundamental rights, such as the protection of personal data and the respect for private life. On the other hand, disclosing ownership data direct to the general public under EMFA has a broader scope than combating money laundering, since knowing who controls or owns the media is directly related to the pillars of a democratic society. For this reason, Recital 32 expressly states that, in the context of media systems, «the disclosure of targeted media ownership information would produce benefits clearly outweighing any possible impact of the disclosure obligation on fundamental rights, including the right to private and family life and the right to protection of personal data.»
Therefore, based on the interpretation that media service providers are required to directly disclose the ownership information listed in letters ‘a’ to ‘d’ to their audience, it is advisable that Member States establish monitoring mechanisms to verify that media service providers effectively make ownership information easily accessible to the public. These mechanisms should include provisions on liability and sanctions for non-compliance with disclosure requirements, such as failure to report or reporting inaccurate ownership information. This approach is consistent with Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 2065 (2015) “Increasing transparency of media ownership”, adopted in June 2015, which underscores the need for accountability in media ownership disclosure.[2] A similar approach is adopted in the field of anti-money laundering by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF, 2012-2025), whose Recommendations highlight the need for clearly defined responsibilities, as well as effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for breaches of ownership disclosure obligations.
- Article 6(2)
Article 6(2) on the other hand does not impose obligations on media service providers. Instead, it places a direct obligation on Member States to designate a national authority or body responsible for developing national media ownership databases, as outlined in Article 6(1). Specifically, the provision sets forth two key requirements: first, Member States must identify the responsible authority, and second, this authority must develop the database containing the relevant ownership information.
As with paragraph 1, Article 6(2) can also be interpreted as falling within the exceptions discussed earlier in the introduction. It explicitly requires Member States to take action at the national level to implement the provision. Therefore, from a procedural perspective, the first step in implementing this provision is for Member States to adopt legislative or administrative measures that designate the competent authority or body. This entity would then be tasked with collecting ownership data and establishing a national database containing the ownership information specified in Article 6(1).
Although it is at the discretion of Member States to decide how they will develop the national databases, it is important that they determine—and establish in binding national rules—whether national authorities will populate the databases with information provided by media service providers or whether media service providers will have the means to directly enter the information themselves. In any case, this reporting activity to the competent authority should also be covered by the monitoring mechanism proposed under Article 6(1) to address cases of missing or incorrect information.
This subsequent task placed on the national authorities is of crucial importance in the implementation of the provision and in the achievement of EMFA objectives regarding ownership transparency. From a broader perspective, the national media ownership databases should follow harmonised criteria, not only for the information they contain – all that listed in Article 6(1) – but also for how this information is structured and made publicly available. According to Section III (21) of Recommendation (EU) 2022/1634, the database should contain disaggregated data on the different types of media, including at the regional and local levels, to which the public would have access free of charge, in an easy, swift and effective way. This is necessary to avoid a fragmented approach to implementation, ensure a consistent application of the law, allow for cross-country and cross-jurisdictional access to media ownership information, and ultimately boost the internal market.
For this purpose, it would be recommended that the EC and the EBMS issue guidelines and opinions to define procedural and technical measures regarding these databases. This could include the use of common computer programmes, files or IT tools, allowing for easy readability and comparability of databases across countries.
Finally, it would be important that national authorities produce regular reports containing meaningful information about the media ownership data collected, and under the umbrella of the EBMS, they exchange information on best practices and improve cooperation in this area (Recommendation (EU) 2022/1634, Section III (21) and (22)).
[1] Data retrieved from the MPM2025 questionnaire, variable 51.
[2] Paragraph 10 of Resolution 2065/2015 states that «The national media authority (or other relevant public body) should be entitled to monitor the respect of reporting obligations and failure to comply with these obligations should be effectively ascertained and sanctioned. »
