by Antonio Manganelli and Maria Luce Mariniello

The recently adopted European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) marks a pivotal step in EU media regulation by introducing, for the first time, a harmonised framework for controlling media market concentrations in the scope of media plurality and editorial independence – two values now treated as interlinked rather than separate.

This framework is not merely procedural but deeply substantive, reshaping the governance structures and the role of independent regulatory authorities. Most crucially, it embeds media plurality and editorial independence as intertwined goals, blurring the once rigid distinction between external and internal pluralism.

1. Media Concentration and the Rationale for Intervention

In media markets, power is not only about market dominance but about influence over public opinion—an impact directly affecting fundamental rights and democratic processes. This dual nature of power explains why concentration in media cannot be regulated solely under competition law. Indeed, while competition law has traditionally focused on economic dominance, EMFA acknowledges that media power is unique: it influences not just markets, but democratic debate and citizens’ rights to access diverse information.

Historically, EU Member States have varied considerably in their approaches. Some adopted sector-specific anti-concentration rules, others relied only on general competition frameworks, invoking Article 21(4) of the EU Merger Regulation to safeguard media pluralism as a public interest. However, this patchwork led to regulatory fragmentation, creating uncertainty, raising compliance costs, and deterring cross-border investment—threatening the integrity of the Digital Single Market.

One case that dramatically exposed these issues was the Vivendi-Mediaset saga, where national regulation intended to protect pluralism was judged by the European Court of Justice to unduly restrict the freedom of establishment. This case provided decisive political momentum for the EMFA legislative proposal and paved the way for a shift from rigid thresholds to an ecosystem-based approach in assessing media pluralism in Italy.

2. Defining Pluralism Beyond Competition Metrics

EMFA’s approach to concentration control reflects an important policy evolution: protecting pluralism is no longer confined to measuring market shares or audience reach. Article 22 EMFA mandates a pluralism impact assessment, which includes:

• Effects on the diversity of media services and opinion formation;
• Safeguards for editorial independence;
• Sustainability of the media outlets involved.

Thus, a case-by-case assessment becomes essential. Importantly, even if market competition remains unaffected, a merger could still threaten the richness and diversity of the information ecosystem, justifying intervention.

Moreover, EMFA clearly links market plurality with editorial independence: ownership concentration matters not only quantitatively but qualitatively—whether it compromises the autonomy of editorial lines.

The policy implications are profound. Regulatory authorities must adopt multidimensional indicators and avoid relying solely on traditional competition parameters. They must also be equipped to assess how mergers could impact access to diverse content, especially within the complex dynamics of the online media environment.

3. The Digital Shift: Platforms and Algorithmic Gatekeeping

Acknowledging the online environment is another major innovation. Media concentration assessments now include digital platforms, provided they “grant access to media content”—an expansively interpreted notion.

This means that concentration scrutiny will extend beyond traditional broadcasters and publishers to online platforms, including social media and video-sharing services, when they act as critical information gatekeepers.

Moreover, regulators must account for the risks stemming from algorithmic curation—such as echo chambers and filter bubbles—that reduce exposure to diverse viewpoints. EMFA implies that true pluralism involves not just content availability but diversity exposure: ensuring users have access to a spectrum of perspectives, not just personalised information silos.

4. Governance Revolution: Independent Assessment and EU Coordination

Another structural innovation is the establishment of a new governance model centered around the European Board for Media Services (EBMS), alongside national regulatory authorities (NRAs).

Article 22 EMFA mandates independent media regulators—not competition authorities or government bodies— to conduct the plurality assessment. This ensures technical neutrality and guards against political interference. Notably, the role of ministries in overriding regulatory decisions on media concentrations will no longer be permissible under EU law.

In parallel, cross-border coordination is reinforced: NRAs must consult the EBMS for transactions potentially affecting the internal media market. The Board can also issue independent opinions and, where necessary, the Commission itself may intervene.

This layered governance structure aims to balance national autonomy and EU-wide consistency, safeguarding both the right to invest and the right of citizens to access diverse media.

5. National Adaptation: The Italian Example

Italy’s evolving legal framework offers a compelling case study in EMFA implementation. Historically, Italian law imposed rigid ownership thresholds under the so-called SIC (Integrated Communications System), which culminated in the well-known Vivendi-Mediaset case. That dispute triggered not only a landmark ruling by the Court of Justice of the EU but also a national regulatory overhaul.

The recent revision of the Italian Consolidated Text on Audiovisual Media Services (TUSMA) mirrors many EMFA innovations.

Italy already entrusts its independent regulator, AGCOM, with the responsibility to assess pluralism risks independently of competition enforcement. The Italian approach moves away from rigid concentration thresholds toward a flexible, case-by-case methodology, based on diversified indicators—including not only audience shares but advertising revenues and the role of digital intermediaries.

AGCOM’s recently adopted guidelines (Delibera 66/24/CONS) further refine the methodological toolkit, proposing sophisticated metrics tailored to the digital transformation of media markets. These guidelines could serve as a model for the European Commission when drafting its own guidelines under Article 22 EMFA.

Moreover, the Italian framework now fully acknowledges the influence of online platforms on pluralism, aligning with EMFA’s expansive notion of the “media environment.”

Finally, on April 15 -2025, the Italian Constitutional Court has acknowledged, in alignment with our interpretation of  EMFA art 22, that media pluralism in the present information system, where news access and dissemination occur via algorithmic source of information, extends beyond the traditional distinction made in the Italian case-law between external pluralism (the number of owners) and internal pluralism (editorial independence), and must reflect the increasing complexity of the digital media environment by including quality indicators. 

In this context, the media plurality test should reflect the need to rethink the constitutional principle of pluralism. It is no longer sufficient to ensure that multiple actors can express themselves; it is essential to guarantee that the conditions for being heard are genuinely distributed, equitable, and sustainable. 

6. Policy Challenges Ahead

While EMFA represents a significant step forward, several critical policy challenges remain:

• Operationalising diversity exposure: moving from formal plurality (number of sources) to substantive diversity (range of viewpoints) will require innovative regulatory techniques.
• Addressing algorithmic bias: regulators must develop methodologies to assess how algorithmic curation by platforms affects users’ exposure to diverse information.
• Ensuring effective independence: guaranteeing real independence of NRAs, particularly in politically sensitive contexts, will be vital for credible pluralism assessments.
• Managing cross-border cases: as media markets become increasingly pan-European, the coordination between NRAs, the Board, and the Commission must be seamless.

Finally, the success of EMFA will depend on building a regulatory culture that recognises the media not just as an economic sector but as a cornerstone of democracy.

Further reading:

• Full article (in Italian) available here
• Text of the European Media Freedom Act: here
• Press release of CJUE decision on Vivendi_mediaset case: here
• AGCOM Guidelines (in Italian): here
• Italian Constitutional Court decision (in Italian, 15 April 2025): here 

About the authors

Antonio Manganelli is Professor of Competition Law and Policy (University of Siena). Maria Luce Mariniello is Senior officer at the Italian regulator for electronic communications (AGCOM). The views and opinions expressed by Maria Luce Mariniello in this post are strictly personal and do not in any way reflect the official position of AGCOM.
The post Blurring boundaries: the EMFA’s new framework for media concentration and pluralism appeared first on Centre for Media Pluralism and Freedom.