The Competition Commission’s provisional report from its media and digital platforms market inquiry is making news for its bold recommendation that Google pay up to R500-million/year to compensate South Africa’s news industry.
But beyond the headline-grabbing figure, the report takes a far more nuanced and strategic approach – it doesn’t just call for financial compensation from search, social media and AI companies or the establishment of a media industry fund. Instead, it seeks to tackle the root causes of Big Tech’s anti-competitive conduct and fundamentally reshape the digital market to create fairer competitive dynamics.
This piece was originally published on Michael Markovitz’s Substack, Media Explorations – read the original article here
Launched on 24 February in Johannesburg, this is the most significant report to date from an independent “Global South” regulator taking on Big Tech and AI’s impact on news.
What makes this report particularly compelling is that it moves beyond the typical pay-for-harm model. Instead of merely compensating media houses for lost revenue, it includes proposals to fix the competition problem itself, ensuring that digital platforms don’t just pay for past damage but are forced to change the way they operate in the South African market. This signals a shift in regulatory thinking – one that aims not just to repair the media industry’s losses but to reshape the digital ecosystem for fairer, more sustainable competition in the future.
The commission believes the provisional report is best understood as “a proposal to fix the competition problem rather than simply compensate for the negative outcome”.
‘Choices’
At the heart of the commission’s approach is the recognition that anti-competitive conduct stems from deliberate “choices” made by digital platforms – whether algorithmic, technological or design-related choices – that distort competition and entrench market dominance. Instead of accepting these distortions as inevitable, the commission sees an opportunity for search, social, adtech and AI companies “to make different choices” – ones that foster a more balanced and competitive digital ecosystem.
As the report itself states: “The inquiry has mostly focused on addressing the source of adverse competitive outcomes and setting out the more competitive outcomes it would like to see, being open to different mechanisms to achieve those outcomes.”
This framing shifts the debate from mere compensation to structural reform, urging digital platforms to rethink how they operate in the South African market. The commission considered “the difficulties faced by the media bargaining solution in other markets and has sought to find alternative win-win solutions that are sustainable long-term”.
Read: Google rejects claims it exploits South African news media
In March last year, in my submission on behalf of the Gibs Media Leadership Think Tank, I urged the commission to make a finding on Meta’s deprecating and deamplification of news across Facebook, Instagram and Threads. I argued that this was undeniably anti-competitive behaviour from the world’s largest digital platform. It is therefore encouraging to see that the commission has taken a decisive stance, making a key finding and recommending that Meta and X should “stop deprioritising news on the Facebook feed to restore referral traffic to the media from its peak with at least a 100% increase in referral traffic … [and] Meta and X [must] cease deprioritising news posts with links in the user feed.”
Digital levy
While still provisional, the Competition Commission’s report goes further than expected in both its findings on digital platforms and the remedies it proposes. This is particularly striking given recent threats from US President Donald Trump to impose retaliatory tariffs on any country implementing digital taxes on US-owned tech companies. Undeterred, the commission has stated that it may impose a “5-10% digital levy on search, social media and AI companies if no agreement is reached”.
The commission emphasises its preference for a negotiated outcome, describing its approach as a “win-win solution”, but it is also clear about the consequences if platforms fail to engage: “If this opportunity is not taken, then the option remains for a permanent digital tariff or levy to compensate for the negative outcomes in lieu of fixing them.”
Expansive and thorough
At 129 pages, the provisional report is expansive and thorough, addressing all 12 main areas of investigation identified two weeks ago. It also incorporates the critical issues that were specifically requested for inclusion by the South African National Editors’ Forum (Sanef)-led civil society alliance:
- Adtech and monetisation challenges;
- Generative AI and news distribution;
- The constitutional interpretation of the Competition Act;
- Broadcast news and the role of the SABC;
- Access to credible news as a public good and a human right;
- Fair compensation for public-interest news used by tech platforms, based on the value they derive;
- Prioritisation of credible news on tech platforms to counter misinformation and disinformation; and
- Transparency in news-related algorithms, data sharing and monetisation tools for publishers.
Crucially, the report is firmly rooted in the democratic imperatives of the South African constitution, recognising the essential role of a free, diverse and sustainable media in upholding citizens’ rights.
While this piece cannot fully do justice to the depth of the provisional report, the Gibs Media Leadership Think Tank joins Sanef in welcoming it as a significant contribution to the global debate about how to address the market failure of news media in the era of Big Tech and AI.
- The author, Michael Markovitz, is director of the Gibs Media Leadership Think Tank
- Read more articles by Michael Markovitz on TechCentral
