For years, Google and Facebook have used news content to attract attention and sell advertising, but readers would eventually click through to media websites. With ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude and Perplexity, this model is disappearing. The new conversational assistants respond directly to users by summarising content from thousands of articles, without the reader necessarily having to open any original sources. This shift could transform the media economy far more profoundly than social media itself.
It was precisely as this new battle was getting underway that the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down, on 12 May 2026, a landmark ruling on the remuneration of press content by major digital platforms. By upholding the right of Member States to impose obligations on platforms regarding negotiation, transparency and financial compensation for publishers, the CJEU has finally recognised an imbalance that has become structural within the information economy.
This decision was necessary.
For more than 15 years, major digital platforms have been capturing a significant share of the advertising revenue and attention generated by journalistic content, whilst the media continue to bear the costs of journalism: investigations, fact-checking, international coverage, editorial responsibility and investment in reliable news. It was becoming increasingly untenable for a digital democracy to be built on the gradual economic weakening of those who produce the news.
Pluralism: a key social issue in Europe
But protecting publishers will not be enough. For the real issue now goes beyond the mere remuneration of content. What is at stake today runs much deeper: Europe’s ability to preserve the diversity of information in an environment dominated by digital platforms and artificial intelligence. Journalistic content is thus becoming a raw material used to feed systems capable of rephrasing, summarising and sometimes replacing the editorial experience itself.
The market is already showing that the nature of the debate has shifted. Several major international media groups have entered into financial agreements with OpenAI or other artificial intelligence companies to allow their content and archives to be used in generative systems. Negotiations are no longer simply about snippets displayed in search engines, but about the very integration of journalism into the future conversational assistants that will shape access to information.
This development opens up real opportunities for the media. Some believe that these partnerships will create new sources of revenue and boost the visibility of journalistic content in the world of AI. Others point out that technological innovation has always transformed media consumption patterns and that it would be unrealistic, or even counterproductive, to try to slow down this development.
These arguments must be heard.
A transformation that needs to be managed
Europe cannot turn its back on innovation, nor can it devise defensive regulations based on nostalgia for an internet that no longer exists. Artificial intelligence offers considerable opportunities for access to knowledge, the flow of information and the dissemination of journalistic content. But precisely because this transformation seems inevitable, it must be properly regulated.
For not all media organisations will be on an equal footing when negotiating with the major tech platforms. Groups with powerful brands, vast archives and international visibility will naturally enjoy a considerable advantage. Conversely, smaller, independent or specialist media organisations risk being sidelined in future conversational environments.
The risk is therefore not merely economic. It is a threat to democracy.
If, in the future, millions of Europeans get their news mainly through ChatGPT, Gemini or other AI assistants, then a handful of US tech companies will become the new gateways to European information.
What then becomes of pluralism when a handful of conversational interfaces become the main intermediaries between citizens and information? How can we ensure the diversity of sources in systems that are largely opaque? How can we preserve a direct relationship between the media and the public when the information experience is taken over by assistants capable of summarising thousands of articles in a matter of seconds?
The central issue is no longer solely one of intellectual property. It has become one of controlling access to information in European democracies.
The CJEU’s ruling was essential, but it can only be seen as a first step. Europe must now develop a more ambitious strategy for media pluralism in the age of artificial intelligence. This will likely involve greater transparency regarding the use of journalistic content by AI models, mechanisms to ensure the visibility of sources, and a much broader discussion on the role of trustworthy media in the conversational interfaces of the future.
The real issue now goes beyond the mere funding of the press. It concerns the ability of European democracies to safeguard pluralistic, identifiable and trustworthy information in a rapidly changing technological landscape. The CJEU protects publishers. Europe must now protect pluralism in the media.
