South Africa’s platform remedies: implementation and transparency

The problem

South Africa’s Competition Commission published the final report of its Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry on 13 November 2025. Markovitz described the outcome as essentially a negotiated settlement. According to him, the Commission chose this route because titles were closing and journalists were losing jobs, and litigation with the platforms could have run for years.

The remedies include a five-year, R688 million (about US$40 million) package from Google and YouTube, which funds national, community and vernacular media through content licensing, innovation grants and capacity building. Publishers also gained an exemption to bargain collectively. In Markowitz’s words, they “can negotiate collectively and not fall foul of antitrust provisions.”

He also pointed to gaps in the remedies:

• No changes to Google’s algorithm. The Commission found that Google underrepresents vernacular and community media in South Africa, but judged algorithmic changes impractical.
• Advertising credits from Meta. Meta’s remedy relies mainly on ad credits, with no direct payment to publishers. Markovitz said this means “publishers buy back reach that Meta’s own design choices removed.” Meta paid just over R496,000 (about US$30,000) to 16 participating publishers over the relevant period.
• AI compensation deferred. The Commission stated the AI market was changing too fast to act on compensation. AI companies are only required to train publishers to opt out. South Africa’s copyright law is also uncertain: the Constitutional Court has sent the Copyright Amendment Bill back to Parliament, with no deadline.

The current challenge is monitoring. “Now we’re in the harder work,” Markovitz said, “on the implementation, the transparency issues and issues like parity.” The Competition Act protects information that firms claim as confidential, and nothing in the remedies requires compliance reports to be published. Appeals against the remedies are before the Competition Tribunal and have not been made public; the South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) has asked the Tribunal to publish them. Markovitz called this disappointing because the inquiry itself was conducted in the open:  “It was a hugely transparent inquiry,” Markovitz said.

How the Media Leadership Think Tank is responding

The Media Leadership Think Tank took part in the inquiry as part of a civil society alliance. It now monitors implementation with the South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) and Moxii Africa (formerly Media Monitoring Africa). In August, the group met the Competition Commission, which welcomed its role. How much the Commission can share is limited by the Competition Act.

The think tank is also following two appeals. Markovitz said a remedial framework from a market inquiry has not been appealed before. If the appeal on the Meta remedies succeeds, he said, “that part of the framework could be struck down and sent back to the Commission.”

• Nine publishers are appealing the Meta remedy as insufficient. The Commission treated Meta differently from Google, reasoning that search engines need news, while publishers choose to post on social media. Markovitz pointed out that 71% of South Africans get news from social media. On the remedy, he said: “It monitors inputs, not outcomes, such as restored reach, referrals or revenue.” The publishers are asking for monetary compensation for at least five years, commitments to restore referral traffic and reach to defined levels, and better data with annual reporting.
• Independent Media is challenging the eligibility rule. Only publishers accountable to the Press Council or the Broadcasting Complaints Commission codes can benefit from the remedies. Markovitz said Independent Media, one of the country’s largest media groups, is challenging the rule because it was expelled from the Press Council for refusing to comply with its ruling.

“Every compensation scheme will face this kind of question: who qualifies, who decides,” Markovitz said. The South African eligibility rule came from civil society, with “accountability being the price of entry.”

Markovitz also reported on the Digital News Transformation Fund (DNTF), a fund for smaller publishers set up by Google and the Association of Independent Publishers. Google has no say in who is funded. In the first round, 164 applicants requested $9.9 million; $650,000 was available, and 21 projects were funded. A second round funded 22 more projects with about $950,000. “Demand is far outstripping supply,” he said. The fund existed before the remedies and counts towards Google’s five-year commitment.

Way forward for the GFMD community and small media 

“When designing remedies, make sure the public can properly monitor implementation, not just the regulator. It’s a public interest issue.” – Michael Markovitz, Media Leadership Think Tank, GIBS.

What our community can do

• Push for remedies the public can monitor. Where competition authorities are examining platforms and news, as in Nigeria and Brazil, ask for remedies that let the public, not only the regulator, follow implementation.
• Submit evidence. If a competition authority in your country is examining platform-news relationships, submit your own revenue and visibility data.
• Use robots.txt. It is the one free protection against AI crawlers that already exists.
• Take part in UNESCO’s follow-up. UNESCO plans regional and national policy dialogues on how the final guidance can be applied.