Meta Platforms Inc. and Google are fighting an Oregon bill that would force them to pay media organizations for accessing their news content or be held civilly liable for its unauthorized use.
A last-minute rewrite of the measure (S.B. 686) aims to address concerns that an earlier version would violate free-speech protections. The bill is expected to receive a vote in the state Senate in the coming days and would also need approval in the state House before scheduled adjournment June 29 to reach the desk of Gov. Tina Kotek (D).
Supporters, including local news organizations, argue the measure would take steps to remedy years of tech companies unfairly profiting from digital journalism as newsroom staffing declined—an imbalance exacerbated by the rise of AI. Most of the 36 counties in Oregon have no more than a single news outlet, and some don’t have any, according to December research from Oregon Public Broadcasting.
“The status quo is that platforms can steal from Oregon newsrooms, and that is untenable,” bill sponsor state Sen. Khanh Pham (D) said in an email.
A related measure in California led to an agreement last year by
“If faced with legislation that requires us to pay for news content that publishers voluntarily post on our platforms and is not the reason most people come to Facebook and Instagram, we will be forced to make the same business decision in Oregon,” Dan Sachs, senior national director of state and local policy for Meta, said in written testimony.
Trade Practices
The amended Oregon measure, approved June 11 by a state Senate committee, would regulate the access of digital news content without an agreement with publishers and broadcasters as an unfair business practice. It would require platforms that access and aggregate, distribute, or display digital journalism content for Oregon users to enter into written compensation agreements with the news organizations that produce it.
The bill would apply to large online platforms, those with at least 50 million monthly active users in the US, if the company or its parent has annual revenue or market capitalization of over $550 billion in the US or 1 billion monthly active users worldwide.
News organizations that produce content for an Oregon audience could bring civil actions if platforms access their content without an agreement, with some exceptions. They could recover the greater of actual damages or $1,000 per access.
The measure aims to safeguard local journalism and counteract news deserts and years of layoffs, Pham said at a June 11 legislative committee meeting. Changes from an earlier version clarify that it wouldn’t regulate speech and would narrowly target the monetization of content, she said.
“What is being regulated here is the business relationship between public platforms and digital journalism providers and ensuring fair trade practices,” Pham said.
Platforms could guard against liability between Jan. 1, 2026, and Dec. 31, 2027, by paying a lump sum of either $104 million or $18 million—depending on their worldwide monthly active users—to be distributed among news organizations. The measure would also create an arbitration process to determine the percentage of platform ad revenue that should go to eligible newsrooms.
Most newsrooms would have to spend 70% of the funding on journalists and support staff. The measure would also create a nonprofit Oregon Civic Information Consortium.
Oregon will “hold the line” against Meta’s warning of pulling news content, Pham said in an email. The company took the same stance over the California bill.
“This is bullying so they can keep stealing,” Pham said.
Tech Opposition
The Computer & Communications Industry Association still has “major concerns” after the latest revision, Megan Stokes, state policy director, said in a statement. The tech group’s members include Meta and Google.
“The bill’s language relies on subsidizing one industry at the expense of another and avoids finding a sustainable solution that supports independent community publications,” she said.
Google has questioned if the measure would go to bulk up state newsrooms as opposed to bolstering the finances of large media companies, such as Gannett Co. Inc. and Lee Enterprises Inc. The bill would likely support out-of-state publishers, including media conglomerates, rather than local newsrooms, William Floyd, senior director of government affairs and public policy for Google, said in written testimony.
“Mandating payment for simply linking to websites contradicts the foundational principles of the web that allow information to be discovered and shared freely,” he said. Google did not answer questions about the amended version of the bill.
TechNet, an industry group with members including
“The amendments renamed the provisions, but those provisions remain in conflict with the First Amendment, due process, and copyright preemption,” she said.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story: