California lawmakers have revived legislation to charge for news articles published by online platforms, a proposal that stalled last year amid divisions within the journalism industry and fierce opposition from Google and other technology companies.
New amendments to Parliament Bill 886 released on Monday aim to address the concerns of small publishers and make the program more similar to how Canada charges platforms that distribute news content.
The bill, also known as the California Press Protection Act, would require digital advertising giants to pay news outlets when they sell ads alongside news content. Publishers must use 70% of those funds to pay California journalists.
The changes would require payments to be calculated based on the number of journalists employed by a news outlet (similar to Canada’s model) rather than the number of impressions an article generates, as originally proposed. They called for a fund paid for by platforms to allocate money to news outlets. Under a Canadian law that took effect last year, Google pays $74 million a year to journalism funds.
“We know from the Canadian version that it’s possible and that journalism is valuable and vital,” said Rep. Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland). “We should do everything we can to ensure our publishers are paid for the work they provide.”
New amendments to the Wicks bill would also give small publishers an extra boost, making them eligible for funding beyond what they spend per reporter and allowing them more flexibility in how they spend the money they receive under the program, Cancel the portion they have to pay.
The bill is sponsored by the California News Publishers Association, of which the Los Angeles Times is a member. Publishers argue that online search and social media platforms are hurting journalism by gobbling up advertising revenue while publishing content they don’t pay for.
The changes to the bill mark a key development since the bill was suspended last year amid fierce opposition from Google and other companies. Google argued that the legislation would upend its business model, writing in an April blog post that the bill would “destroy journalism in California.” Earlier this year, the search giant opposed the bill by removing links to California news sites from some users’ search results.
Google did not respond to an email seeking comment on the latest changes to the bill.
But the amendment is unlikely to be final. Lawmakers typically intensify negotiations on thorny issues toward the end of the August legislative session. The bill is scheduled to receive a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 25, its next major hurdle.
State Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange), the committee chairman, said he expects further changes to emerge as negotiations continue. He said he would like to see the bill passed, but wants to ensure it strikes the right balance between the needs of journalism and what tech platforms can pay.
“I believe we can screw it up so that we can make it so expensive that the platform can’t carry it. [journalism] content,” Umberg said. “That would be catastrophic. So I don’t know where we found the sweet spot.
A separate bill seeking to aid the journalism industry would impose new taxes on the data Amazon, Meta and Google harvest from users and inject money from a “data extraction mitigation fee” into news organizations, giving them tax credits for hiring workers. No full-time reporters.
As a tax measure, Senate Bill 1327 requires approval by two-thirds of the Legislature and raises political challenges in an election year. Still, state Sen. Steve Glazer (D-Olinda) said his bill is consistent with Wicks’ legislation and that he still hopes lawmakers can find ways to help the journalism industry.
“I continue to have multiple conversations with her and others about how we can solve the problem,” Glazer said. “There are a lot of things to try.”
