California News Publishers Association Issues Scathing Critique of AB 123
Sacramento, CA – February 25, 2025 – The California News Publishers Association (CNPA) today delivered a forceful condemnation of Assembly Bill 123, known as the California News Preservation Act, just two days after the legislation faced a markedly contentious hearing on February 23. The industry organization’s statement underscored deep-seated opposition to key elements of the proposed law, particularly its framework for requiring tech platforms to share revenue with news publishers.
AB 123, authored by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, is intended to address the financial challenges facing local journalism by mandating that large online platforms compensate news organizations for the use of their content. Proponents argue this revenue is essential for sustaining public interest journalism in an era where digital aggregators benefit significantly from disseminating news produced by others. The bill aims to level the playing field and ensure that the originators of journalistic content receive fair compensation, which they can then reinvest into newsgathering operations.
However, the CNPA’s reaction, following the heated committee hearing, signals significant misalignment between the bill’s aims and its perceived real-world impacts. In its strongly worded statement issued on February 25, the association did not mince words, criticizing specific provisions of the bill as potentially detrimental to the very industry it purports to support. The core of the CNPA’s objection centers on the proposed revenue sharing model, arguing that its structure could inadvertently disadvantage smaller, independent news organizations across California.
The association contends that the mechanisms outlined in AB 123 for calculating and distributing revenue from tech platforms are complex and could favor larger media entities with the resources to navigate intricate compliance requirements. Smaller newsrooms, often operating with limited administrative and legal capacity, might find it challenging to qualify for, track, and receive the intended compensation, potentially leaving them behind while the bill benefits primarily larger players. This concern raises questions about whether the bill, in its current form, genuinely supports the diverse ecosystem of California journalism, from major metropolitan dailies to small community weeklies and digital-native news sites.
Furthermore, the CNPA highlighted the potential for significant and complex compliance burdens associated with the bill. Implementing a system that accurately tracks the value derived by platforms from news content and ensures equitable distribution among publishers is a formidable task. The CNPA argues that the administrative overhead and technical challenges involved could impose substantial costs and complexities on news organizations, particularly those with limited resources, potentially diverting energy and funds away from essential journalistic work.
The contentious nature of the February 23 hearing, preceding the CNPA’s formal statement, reportedly saw sharp exchanges between lawmakers, industry representatives, and tech company lobbyists. While the specific details of the hearing’s content were not elaborated upon in the CNPA statement beyond its characterization as ‘heated’ and ‘contentious,’ the association’s swift and strong response underscores that significant objections were raised and remain unresolved.
The CNPA urged lawmakers to reconsider the bill’s current structure, emphasizing the need for alternative approaches to bolster local journalism without imposing what they describe as an ‘unworkable framework.’ While the CNPA’s statement did not detail these alternative approaches, industry discussions often include concepts such as direct government subsidies, tax credits for news consumers or publishers, or support for non-profit journalism models. The CNPA’s call for reconsideration suggests a preference for mechanisms perceived as less reliant on complex, platform-centric revenue sharing and potentially more directly supportive of newsgathering operations.
This strong reaction from the CNPA, a key representative body for California’s news industry, highlights the deep divisions that persist between traditional news organizations, legislative proponents of AB 123, and the major tech platforms regarding the most effective and equitable path forward. The debate is not merely about financial models; it touches upon fundamental questions about the value of journalism in the digital age, the responsibilities of platforms that disseminate news, and the potential real-world impact of legislation on the fragile economics of local news across the state.
As the legislative process continues, the CNPA’s vocal opposition ensures that the concerns of a significant portion of the news industry regarding implementation complexity and potential unintended consequences, particularly for smaller publishers, will remain central to the debate surrounding the California News Preservation Act. The path forward for AB 123 is likely to involve further negotiation and discussion as stakeholders grapple with finding a solution that supports California journalism sustainably without creating undue burdens or exacerbating existing inequities within the industry.
