Continental shift: How quotas impacted Euro streaming & what’s next

It is almost a decade since the European Commission introduced regulations that enabled countries to implement content investment obligations on streamers – and now that legislation is set to be updated again.

The Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) might not be the snappiest of titles but make no mistake, the regulations have teeth and are arguably now more relevant than ever to a sector in the throes of change. Broadcast International spoke to insiders – many on condition of anonymity – to explore what its impact has been to understand what might be coming next.

But first, let’s rewind to 1989 when the Television Without Frontiers Directive was introduced in a bid to co-ordinate European broadcasting regulations and promote local works. It turned into the AVMSD in 2010 and is updated every eight to 10 years – but it was the 2018 revision that gained prominence after enabling certain member states to introduce investment obligations for global streamers.

In February this year, the European Commission launched a public consultation of the AVMSD to assess its impact and explore options for its revision. An evaluation of the 2018 provisions, alongside its review proposals, must be put forward to the European Parliament and the European Council by 19 December 2026.

As the name suggests, the AVMSD is concerned with the broader European media landscape, meaning scrutinisation of streamers’ obligations, addressed in Article 13, will be just one of several focuses this time around.

Article 13 comprises two parts: the first requires on-demand services to carry a minimum 30% share of European works in their catalogues; the second, optional part, covers financial contributions. It allows member states to require streamers to contribute to the production of European and local works via direct investments in content and/or levies paid to national film funds.

Although the country-of-origin principle normally prevails, in this context the requirement can also apply to a targeted country, provided the measures are “proportionate” and “non-discriminatory”.

While the AVMSD’s streaming requirements were introduced in 2018, it took far longer for the regulations to take effect and their impact varied greatly from one country to another. Although the deadline to transpose the directive into national law was September 2020, it was not until 2023 that all 27 member states had done so.

Furthermore, the European Audiovisual Observatory reported in 2023 that 12 had merely transposed the 30% European catalogue quota without imposing any financial obligations. Although that number has since fallen slightly, countries such as Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia and Bulgaria still fall into this category.

Differing approaches

The 15 countries that did implement financial obligations chose varying requirements: one group chose to require streamers simply to contribute to their film funds - often around 1% to 2% of local revenues, a path chosen by Poland (1.5%) and Portugal (1%). Others opted for a more flexible mix. In Greece, the 1.5% levy can be directed towards local production, and a similar approach was taken in Romania, where 40% of its 4% levy can be handled this way.

In the Czech Republic, streamers must dedicate 1% to its national film fund, plus an additional 2.5% either through direct investment or by adding to the levy. In Denmark, rules introduced in 2023 require a 2% levy, which rises to 5% if streamers do not commission the equivalent amount in local content themselves.

Only France and Italy set high thresholds - requiring, respectively, 20% and 16% of revenues to be spent locally – while Spain mandates a direct investment of 5% of revenues, which includes a 70% sub-quota for independent productions and a 40% sub-quota for regional languages.

“For sure, France is seen by many as a paradise for producers,” says Federation Studios founder Pascal Breton. “The situation varies greatly depending on the country and its size. Italy took that path, and Germany is now moving in that direction, but some other countries are too small to develop a sustainable industry. Meanwhile, others - like Spain - have taken a different approach, choosing to implement lighter obligations because the streamers were already investing heavily in Spanish production hubs.

“Some countries, including Germany, have a long tradition of levies rather than direct contributions, so you really cannot compare,” says another source at a European producer. “It must remain a decision for each country because this is a culturally related matter, and culture is very much national. Even so, it does help Europe to grow, because we get to know each other better by watching our respective content.”

In a more recent development, smaller countries have been making bigger moves. The Netherlands introduced a 5% direct investment obligation into Dutch works in 2024, which is expected to generate €40m (£34m) annually.

Finland announced last year that it is working on regulations with a view to introducing new rules by 2028. And although not a member state, Norway - as part of the European Economic Area (EEA) - introduced a law in February 2025 in accordance with the AVMSD, requiring a 4% direct investment.

Ireland was preparing its own legislation until the proposal was recently shelved because the government feared it would increase prices for consumers. But the trend continues – Estonia revealed plans in June to implement a 5% direct investment obligation that could bring between €1.5m (£1.3m) and €2m (£1.7m) a year to local film and television.

Arguably, the AVMSD’s greatest impact has been felt in one of Europe’s biggest markets: France. The country of cultural exception, where broadcasters are heavily regulated, introduced measures in 2021 that require streamers to invest as much as 20% of their local revenues into European works. Subquotas were also implemented, requiring 85% to be French-language, 20% to be movies, and two-thirds to be independent works.

“Without these rules, we probably wouldn’t have seen the 30% increase in production that we enjoyed”
Pascal Breton, Federation Studios

If a streamer chooses to invest more, it can negotiate additional privileges: Disney+ raised its investment commitment to 25%, allocating more funds to cinema, in exchange for a theatrical window that was cut from 17 to nine months.

There is also a 5.15% Centre National du Cinéma (CNC) levy, applicable to broadcasters as well, and it is worth noting that while many countries define independent production based on the equity a commissioner holds in a producer, in France it also incorporates a maximum duration for rights retention – guaranteeing producers retain IP.

Tough spending requirements

The impact of France’s obligations can be seen in figures from the country’s Regulatory Authority for Audiovisual and Digital Communication (Arcom). In 2025, streamers invested €525m (£450m) into French productions, with Netflix accounting for 60%. That €525m represents 32% of total spending, with legacy broadcasters accounting for the other 68%.

“Without these rules, we probably wouldn’t have seen the 30% increase in production that we enjoyed,” says Breton. “It would have grown, but not nearly as much. And it is no coincidence either that the two biggest international groups, Banijay and Mediawan, are French.”

Breton admits France’s spending requirements were “a bit tough” for streamers at first but they adapted, he says, including to the independent quota.

They are now “fully and permanently” integrated into the French ecosystem, “meaning they can access CNC funding and international tax credits”. Streamers and broadcasters co-produce some shows, and others are streamer-only, but both can be supported by the CNC.

But IP retention remains an issue elsewhere. Italy had required a 20% investment from streamers in its November 2021 legislation, but its phased nature meant there was plenty of time for lobbying to take effect. By 2024, a corrective decree lowered that threshold to 16% for European works.

But a sub-quota for Italian independent productions increased from 50% to 70% of the investment, meaning spending requirements grew from 10% to 11.2%. The Italian film sub-quota was also raised to roughly 3% of revenues. With the transition period now complete, this year is when the full impact will be felt.

There is no maximum rights retention period in the 2024 Italian AVMSD regulation. However, full buyouts are excluded if Italian producers wish to benefit from national film funds and tax incentives, which ultimately helps to safeguard IP retention.

Germany’s Federal Cabinet, meanwhile, approved the Media Services Investment Obligation Act in May and is now heading to the Federal Parliament as a final step.

Streamers previously had to contribute a 1.8% to 2.5% levy to film funds - now they will be required to invest 8% of revenues into European works. Sub-quotas apply: 80% for German-language content; 60% for new works (as opposed to acquisitions); and 70% for independent producers.

“Rights retention is what streamers want to get rid – it’s what hurts them the most”
Julia Maier-Hauff, PROG

Here, too, streamers can negotiate greater flexibility with trade unions if they commit to higher investment spending - in this case, more than 12% of local revenues - allowing them to adapt sub-quota rules, including the German-language quota and rights retention.

“Rights retention is what streamers want to get rid of the most – it’s what hurts them the most,” says Julia Maier-Hauff, managing director of German producers’ organisation PROG. Grey areas in the regulation are also expected to prompt amendments from PROG, including the mechanism providing more flexibility to streamers.

Maier-Hauff stresses it remains unclear whether a single deal with one union is adequate, particularly as most unions are not sufficiently representative of the broader industry.

While the 8% spending requirement is not as high as German producers would have liked, it is higher than Netflix would want. The streamer and others like it have become increasingly vocal against more regulation and have driven several legal actions. 

At the same time, as more European markets implement direct investment obligations, the model is inspiring countries outside the EU, with failed attempts in Canada and ongoing talks in the UK. There is a lot at stake here.

On the IP question, Netflix points out that many production firms are happy to effectively work for hire, that the current rules benefit big companies and not the entire sector, and that it needs to own IP if it is to invest heavily in marketing for a show or to build a franchise.

But its biggest headache right now is the multiplication of sub-quotas in Europe, while Netflix also suggests that French regulations have resulted in production cost inflation - although some argue that the streamer has contributed to those rises.

Netflix also claims obligations are unnecessary because it would have invested locally anyway, as it does in Korea, Colombia or the UK, where there are no rules. A production representative who wanted to remain anonymous responds: “That’s true, but then if their strategy suddenly changes and streamers want to pull out, they can.”

Nor does Netflix want countries to view streamers as responsible for current market troubles and then implement even more stringent regulations to compensate for traditional broadcasters.

“We need to be careful in how we diagnose the problem,” the streamer’s vice-president of content in EMEA, Larry Tanz, told the Enders TMT Leaders Live 2026 Conference in June.

“We are part of the industry in the UK, in Italy, in Spain, and right across Europe. And like you, we are worried about where it goes next”
Larry Tanz, Netflix

Acknowledging that the ecosystem is under pressure, with large numbers of skilled people out of work, he said it is wrong to think Netflix is part of the problem.

“Right now, there are new forces at play,” he continued, pointing out that “professionally made TV shows and films” are competing for audiences and advertising budgets with user-generated video, while “production costs have been rising too high for the traditional funding model to absorb”.

“We are part of the industry in the UK, in Italy, in Spain, and right across Europe. And like you, we are worried about where it goes next,” he added.

Legal challenges

One of the first major moves around the implementation of the AVMSD came in headlinegrabbing legal action last year. Netflix, supported by Disney Benelux, appealed to the Belgian Constitutional Court following a new AVMSD decree by the Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles that toughened local investment obligations.

The previous 2.2% investment rate was set to increase progressively by 2027 to a maximum of 9.5% of revenues, structured by tiers based on streamer revenue.

The Belgian court ruled in March that the rate, despite being higher than most EU countries, is proportionate, as is the 35% French-language sub-quota aimed at promoting cultural and linguistic diversity.

But it reoriented four points to be judged by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), including what is ineligible in terms of obligations, and what happens in the event of overlap of other member states’ obligations. The European Court will also rule over the entire decree’s compliance with broader European rights.

Another legal battle is currently under way in France following the publication of an additional sub-quota decree aimed at genre diversity, which requires that 20% of streamers’ investment obligations be directed towards documentaries, animation and performing arts. Netflix, Disney+ and Prime Video appealed the decision to France’s Conseil d’État over the summer, arguing that the measure is both discriminatory and disproportionate.

Netflix vice-president of content in France, Pauline Dauvin, has suggested on several occasions that these rules go too far.

She argues they are subtly doubling the genre diversity agreement Netflix had with trade unions; that they are asymmetrical compared with broadcasters’ requirements, whose genre diversity is still based on those trade agreements and/or on Arcom’s convention arrangements; and that they threaten streamers’ editorial freedom by dictating genre splits and commissions, disregarding audience demand. She pointed out that Netflix has contributed more than €2bn (£1.7bn) to the local economy so far.

As streamers become more prominent in French funding, and in order to maintain balance and prevent the market from becoming dependent, Netflix now wants a ceiling on its investments.

Netflix and Prime Video also appealed to the Conseil d’État last year regarding the lengthy 17-month post-theatrical window imposed on them if they do not negotiate higher movie investments.

No appetite for revisions

Despite the frictions, sources at streamers, broadcasters and producers suggest to Broadcast International that there is little appetite to reopen the AVMSD, and Article 13 in particular. Indeed, reopening it could further complicate things, and all parties are at risk. Streamers would at the very least require more precise “proportionate” and “non-discriminatory” criteria.

On the other side, some writers’ unions have asked for the 30% European catalogue quota to be increased closer to the 50% threshold of terrestrial broadcasters. Some would also like a firmer definition of “audiovisual works”, as in some countries it is seen as a loose term, among other things.

“The AVMSD should not be reopened,” Charles Rivkin, chairman of the Motion Picture Association, which represents the interests of US studios and streamers, told trade magazine Le Film Français during the Sommet Lumière in early September.

“At a time when the industry is going through deep changes, the goal must be to guarantee regulatory certainty so companies can take risks”
Charles Rivkin, Motion Picture Association

“Regulation must be stable and predictable… Many member states are still in the process of adapting their local regulations. At a time when the industry is going through deep changes, the goal must be to guarantee regulatory certainty so companies can take risks.”

He added, however, that “the TV industry is evolving fast; therefore, regulation must be flexible enough to enable players to respond to audience demand and favour investments in quality local stories.”

Breton said the Sommet Lumière – a gathering of more than 250 film and TV luminaries – showed “just how close we have moved to the streamers. We are caught in the same tsunami of video-sharing platforms and AI. Streamers are going to be challenged too.”

At time of press, the European Commission’s intentions around changes to the AVMSD are largely unknown. In evaluating the 2018 update, the review is meant to examine whether rules should be revised regarding the “visibility and prominence” of general interest media, if advertising reforms are required between traditional and digital players, and how minors can be protected on video-sharing platforms.

Issues at play include how general interest media – a term yet to be defined - is promoted on digital interfaces, such as smart TVs. And this time, it is YouTube and content creators that might find themselves in the crosshairs.

The directive was placed under the European Democracy Shield, and its review must be carried out in coherence with other EU laws, such as the Digital Services Act, which further complicates the situation. The European Commission has not explicitly mentioned investment obligations for YouTube, but many are thinking about just that.

Some, in fact, have already acted: the Belgian region of Flanders tried to use Article 13 in 2024 to extend investment obligations to video-sharing platforms. The result? It was taken to court by the triumvirate of Google, Meta and TikTok. The specificities of video-sharing platforms mean finding a way to integrate them into European media regulation – and even having them contribute to local content economies – may not be an easy task.