Media and digital platforms report — Pragmatic, but there’s unfinished business

Earlier this year, in Beyond Compensation: Reshaping the Digital News Economy, I argued that the Competition Commission’s provisional report on the Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry (MDPMI) was significant not only for its headline figures, but because it sought to “fix the competition problem rather than simply compensate for the negative outcome”. It moved beyond a narrow pay-for-harm model and attempted to reshape the underlying digital market dynamics.

In a subsequent paper, Framing the Fight for Fairer Digital Markets, I assessed how a journalism-led civil society alliance convened by the South African National Editors’ Forum (Sanef) helped shape the inquiry’s framing, scope and provisional findings. That analysis covered the alliance’s influence on rights-based framing, algorithmic opacity, structural remedies, AdTech, public broadcasting and generative AI.

This article picks up where those pieces left off. With the final MDPMI report now published, I offer a preliminary assessment of what has changed, what has been secured and where ambitions have been scaled back.*

* * *

When the commission launched the MDPMI in April 2023 it became one of the most active Global South bodies grappling seriously with platform power, media sustainability and the democratic value of independent journalism. In 2025 the provisional report hinted at an inquiry willing to push beyond narrow competition doctrine. The final MDPMI report confirms that ambition but also the limits of a regulator confronting technology design and structural asymmetries that run far beyond national borders.

On 13 November 2025, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, Parks Tau, received the report and committed to tabling it in Parliament within 10 days before taking it to the Government of National Unity Cabinet.

At its best, the final report goes further than expected. It delivers a negotiated, enforceable funding package between the commission and Google; establishes enforceable remedies for Meta, TikTok, Microsoft, X and OpenAI; creates new commitments on YouTube; includes remedies on the SABC; and places a clear rights-based democratic framing at the centre of its analysis. Yet it also shows the limits of a negotiated remedy-based approach. The commission can extract concessions, but a structural redesign of the market was always unlikely by a Global South country within the confines of this inquiry.

The negotiated settlement model also carries a major practical advantage: most of the remedies take effect immediately. Had the commission pursued a purely adversarial or structural route, South Africa would likely have faced years of litigation, during which no support would flow to newsrooms, community media or the SABC at a time of market failure and financial crisis. In this context, the settlement is pragmatic. It secures funding, transparency commitments, AI controls and enforceable obligations now, rather than deferring relief until after protracted court battles that the commission – and the media sector – can ill afford to wait out.

A more direct account of platform-induced harm

The commission’s final report places platform conduct in very direct terms, finding that the concentration of market power in search, social media and digital advertising is central to the weakening of news publishers, especially amid collapsing referral traffic and the rise of AI systems that summarise news without compensation. This is the strongest regulatory recognition to date that platforms extract value from news content while returning a diminishing share, and that these dynamics directly undermine the economic foundations of journalism.

The negotiated Google settlement

A key feature of the final report is the structured agreement between the commission and Google, requiring aggregated R688-million ($40-million) funding over five years, including:

• R38-million per year for three years for a Digital News Transformation Fund (DNTF) for small and community media (already committed last year and therefore not new funding), followed by matching funding of R19-million per year for two years;
• R71-million per year for five years for Google News Showcase for national publishers and broadcasters, including the SABC.
• R45-million per year for three years for an AI Innovation Fund for mainstream media; and
• 6-million over three years in total training support for the full industry, including a provision on vernacular training in partnership with the Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA).

This package provides predictable multi-year support and is enforceable as a stipulated remedial action.

Plurality of funds

One of the most notable shifts between the provisional and final reports is the disappearance of the idea of a single, centralised Media Industry Fund. The final report instead reflects a move towards a plurality of parallel funds, each addressing a different part of the ecosystem. These include the currently Google-funded DNTF, which was developed using governance principles informed by international models, including guidance from the International Fund for Public Interest Media (IFPIM); Google’s own multi-year funding streams for national, community and mainstream publishers; Sanef’s proposed Journalism Fund SA, intended to support public-interest journalism through a multi-stakeholder governance model; and the statutory MDDA.

South Africa will therefore have multiple, purpose-specific media and journalism funds rather than a unified national mechanism.

Negotiated outcomes with Meta, TikTok and Microsoft — but no X

The non-Google remedies include new monetisation tools, expanded eligibility for publisher programmes, analytics support and visibility improvements across Meta, TikTok and Microsoft. X did not participate in the negotiated process and has 20 days to appeal the imposition of remedial action.

Self-regulation strengthened on paper, but vulnerable in practice

One of the most significant institutional outcomes of the MDPMI is the centrality of self-regulation in determining who qualifies as a legitimate South African news publisher. Across the remedies, eligibility for several of the largest benefits – including Google News Showcase, monetisation tools, training programmes and certain AI-related protections – is explicitly tied to membership of the Press Council or the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA).

This is a major win for the Sanef-led alliance, which consistently argued that ethical journalism, credibility and public accountability must sit at the heart of any remedy involving platform money or AI governance.

But the commission stops short of directing any platform funding to support the Press Council or BCCSA themselves. If they weaken or collapse, the entire remedy architecture becomes unstable. The inquiry therefore strengthens the role of self-regulation, but leaves its sustainability unresolved.

Improved platform position for SABC

The SABC’s inclusion in the final remedies was another significant gain for the civil society alliance, as the public broadcaster had been excluded from the original terms of reference. The final report contains meaningful remedies for the SABC. Beyond its inclusion in the R71-million-per-year Google News Showcase programme, YouTube must provide Partner Sales support, skills development and onboarding within six months for a three-year period, enabling the SABC to sell advertising directly on its YouTube channels and strengthen its monetisation capacity.

The report also includes support for digitising the SABC archives, a national asset whose cultural and economic value has never been fully realised. But there is no real detail here. This process will require careful oversight to ensure intellectual property remains with the SABC and that public ownership is not compromised.

Taken together, these remedies materially improve the SABC’s position within dominant platform ecosystems while reinforcing its democratic role in making public-interest content accessible. Broader policy questions about long-term funding correctly remain with the Ministry of Communications and Digital Technologies and Parliament.

Collective bargaining

The commission recommends that the minister grant a block exemption to allow media houses to negotiate collectively. This recognises bargaining asymmetry and brings South Africa closer to models in Australia and Indonesia. It creates legal cover for collective negotiation but does not alter the underlying power imbalance with global platforms.

Enforcement: Stronger than expected

The final report establishes a clear enforcement architecture. Platforms subject to remedies must submit annual compliance affidavits attesting to full implementation and provide regular reporting on roll-out progress, publisher onboarding, training delivery, monetisation tools and AI content-control features. Any attempt to vary or discontinue a remedy requires 20 days’ written notice. Persistent noncompliance may be escalated to the Competition Tribunal, which can issue enforceable orders and penalties.

AdTech and transparency

Google has agreed to implement EU-equivalent transparency and anti-self-preferencing commitments in South Africa. The commission held that:

“If there is any structural remedy implemented by Google ordered in the EU Ad Tech Investigation and the US Ad Tech Case, Google will extend this to South Africa within six months of the date such a remedy is implemented in the EEA or the USA”.

These obligations now form part of the enforceable MDPMI remedy suite.

AI: enforceable content controls, but no licensing framework

AI companies must now provide South African publishers with the same content-control and opt-out mechanisms available in the EU, including training on the ability to block content from model training, updates and AI-generated summaries. These obligations are backed by compliance affidavits and potential Tribunal escalation.

But the inquiry does not establish a licensing or compensation framework for training data. That structural question is left to future legislative processes.

The missing remedy

One notable omission from the final report is the provisional finding that Meta and X should cease deprioritising posts containing links to news articles. The harm is acknowledged, but no remedy is imposed. Ordering platforms to modify ranking systems would perhaps have been globally unprecedented, requiring ongoing supervision the commission does not possess and exposing the commission to likely litigation risk. Its removal highlights the limits of intervening directly in algorithmic design and underscores the need for a broader regulatory framework spanning competition, data, safety and platform governance.

Content moderation and platform accountability

The report recommends that the Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies consider establishing a co-regulatory framework for social media platforms, using a similar model of accountability upheld by the Press Council and the BCCSA. This aligns with that Ministry’s ongoing legislative review of audiovisual services and online safety and recognises that certain platform-related harms extend beyond competition law.

Fiscal incentives 

The Commission also notes a parallel process led by the Government Communications and Information Service on the revitalisation of the print media sector, including potential fiscal measures such as tax incentives for supporting journalism. While the commission does not make recommendations on these draft incentives, it signals that fiscal measures would complement the objectives of the MDPMI and form part of a wider ecosystem of sustainability interventions.

Geopolitical constraints

The provisional report suggested a 5–10% digital levy on search, social media and AI companies if no agreement was reached. The final report makes no reference to this option. Trump-era executive orders warning of retaliatory action against countries imposing digital taxes – combined with onerous SA Treasury and legislative requirements – created a political environment in which implementing a mandatory levy became significantly less viable.

Progress made — and unfinished business

South Africa now has:

• Additional funding streams for publisher groups, including the public broadcaster;
• Meaningful, enforceable remedies across major platforms;
• A rights-based democratic framing from a competition authority;
• Enforceable AI content-control commitments;
• A possible path to collective bargaining; and
• Policy guidance on social media co-regulation

But it still lacks:

• Secure funding for the Press Council and BCCSA;
• A unified long-term mechanism for media sustainability;
• Structural reform of the digital advertising market;
• A licensing and compensation framework for AI; and
• Remedies addressing opaque and harmful algorithmic choices, including the deprioritisation of news links.

Where this leaves us

The final report is a pragmatic settlement with clear unfinished business. But the inquiry also deserves real credit. 

Few regulators in the world have produced a market inquiry report this thorough, technically strong and willing to take on platform power with enforceable obligations. Led by chair James Hodge with industry expert Paula Fray, the MDPMI team has delivered a well-argued and well-researched report that meaningfully shifts the policy terrain. It does not fix structural problems but it establishes a foundation on which the next phase of South Africa’s digital media regulation can be built

The MDPMI has opened the door. What comes through it will depend on Parliament, Cabinet, regulators and the South African media sector itself. DM

This article first appeared on Media Explorations Substack

* Disclosure: The Media Leadership Think Tank (MLTT) participated in the Sanef-led civil society alliance that made written and oral submissions to the MDPMI. I am also a member of the Sanef Access to Information and Media Policy subcommittee. This preliminary analysis is written in my capacity as Director of the MLTT.