MSMN Analysis
Explainer based on published European Commission consultation and review materials — not legal advice and not an exclusive interview package.

The 2026 AVMSD review: what could change for European (and Irish) viewers

The Audiovisual Media Services Directive is the quiet operating system of European television and streaming. It is why a catalogue in Dublin or Düsseldorf is supposed to hold a floor of European works, why video-sharing platforms have duties on harmful content, and why “country of origin” still decides which capital regulates a channel. In 2026 the European Commission is evaluating and reviewing that operating system. Article 33 of the Directive tells it to report to the Parliament and the Council by 19 December 2026, “where appropriate” with proposals. The review is also listed among Commission commitments in the European Democracy Shield.

This is not a rewrite of MSMN’s explainers on the 30% quota or Coimisiún na Meán’s Irish rulebook. Those describe the current floor. The review is about whether the floor, the walls and the neighbours — advertising, influencers, prominence of general-interest media, the Digital Services Act — still fit a market that has moved from catch-up players to full-time recommendation machines.

What is actually on the table

The Commission’s public materials are more specific than a vibe of “updating TV law.” A call for evidence in late 2025 framed three policy options: leave the AVMSD unchanged; make targeted adjustments (influencers, prominence, advertising, protection of minors); or transform the framework into a broader EU content directive or regulation. A public consultation then ran from 10 February 2026 to 1 May 2026, in all official languages, with four pillars: scope and enforcement; audiovisual commercial communications; protection of viewers; and media diversity in the internal market.

The Commission’s own news note said the work programme aims to simplify and adapt rules to a shifting landscape. Core priorities named in public: streamlining advertising rules; a better level playing field between traditional and new digital players; stronger protection of minors on video-sharing platforms; prominence of media services of general interest; and coherence with other EU law, “notably the Digital Services Act.”

Henna Virkkunen, as Executive Vice-President, held an implementation dialogue on 4 May 2026, days after the consultation closed. The Commission’s published readout is careful. Participants widely agreed the Directive had been valuable for the internal market, cultural diversity and viewer protection, including minors. They also called for modernised advertising rules so broadcasters and video-sharing platforms compete on less asymmetric terms, for clearer prominence of general-interest media, and for legal clarity on influencers. The European-works objectives were described as still relevant. That is not a Commission proposal. It is a structured conversation the Commission said would inform the evaluation.

What is not being repealed in the press release

Nothing in the published 2026 consultation package announces the death of the 30% on-demand share or of linear European-works quotas. The Society of Audiovisual Authors’ briefing on the Directive still treats Article 13 as the landmark: at least 30% European works in on-demand catalogues, plus prominence, plus the option for Member States to require financial contributions. A majority of EU countries already use that option via investment obligations, levies, or both. Ireland, as MSMN has set out separately, wrote a levy power and has not switched it on.

The review can still change the politics of those tools. If Brussels tightens prominence of general-interest media, Irish and other public-service players gain a European hook for homepage real estate. If it reopens financial-contribution language, Dublin’s parked “Netflix levy” becomes a different conversation. If it does neither, national capitals keep doing the heavy lifting — France at 60% of certain catalogues, Ireland at the 30% floor plus a Cnam measurement framework.

Country of origin remains the other sleeper. The 2018 revision already tried to clarify which Member State’s rules apply and how derogations work. Any 2026 rewrite that blurs establishment tests would move supervision toward the market being targeted. That would be a bigger deal for Irish households than a new acronym, because it would decide whether a global streamer’s Irish storefront is a Dublin file or a Dutch or Luxembourg one.

Viewers, minors, influencers

The part of the review most households will feel — if they feel it at all — is not the definition of a European work. It is who counts as a media service when a teenager is watching a creator rather than a channel. The Commission’s call for evidence put influencer content inside the protection-of-younger-viewers file. The May 2026 dialogue repeated the ask: legal clarity on how the AVMSD applies to influencers, especially for minors.

Advertising is the industrial twin of that question. Linear television lives with minute-limits and product-placement rules written for a schedule. Video-sharing and creator economies live with disclosure norms and platform terms. “Level playing field” in Commission English usually means: the same commercial communication should not be lightly regulated on one screen and tightly regulated on another. Broadcasters have argued that point for years. Platforms argue they are not broadcasters. The review is where those sentences meet an impact assessment.

Prominence of general-interest media is a newer political object than prominence of European works. It is about whether a public-service or independent news service can be found beside the algorithm’s entertainment row. For Irish viewers that is an RTÉ Player / TG4 / commercial-news question as much as a drama-quota question. For European readers it is the Democracy Shield rationale in one line: cultural diversity and civic media are being asked to share a homepage.

Ireland’s file inside a European timetable

Ireland transposed the 2018 Directive late in the Union’s pack, through the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act 2022 and Part 10A of the Broadcasting Act 2009. Coimisiún na Meán is still writing operational European-works rules for on-demand catalogues in 2026 — share methodology, prominence measurement, exemptions — while Brussels evaluates the parent Directive. National clocks and Union clocks are not synced. A Cnam rulebook can be final before a new AVMSD text exists. A new AVMSD text can then force the rulebook to open again.

That is why Irish producers and platforms should read the review as a constraint on the next five years, not as tonight’s remote-control setting. Catalogue share, levy option, video-sharing duties and advertising limits will either be confirmed, tightened, or recast. Until 19 December 2026 the honest public statement is the Commission’s own: evaluation first, proposals “where appropriate.” Coimisiún na Meán’s 2026 work programme already treated European-works operational rules as a domestic priority; the Union review is the reason those rules may have a short first life before a second drafting.

What to watch before the report

Three markers are more useful than a rumour of a “new quota.” First, which of the three options the impact assessment prefers — status quo, targeted fix, or a wider content instrument. Second, whether prominence of general-interest media becomes a hard obligation with measurable tools, the way European-works prominence is becoming in Dublin. Third, whether influencer and advertising rules close the gap that linear players keep describing, without pretending a bedroom studio is a licensed broadcaster.

For a household the test stays ordinary. Can you find a European work without already knowing its name? Can a public-service live stream be found when it matters? Are commercial messages labelled when a creator is the channel? The 2026 review will not choose your next title. It will decide how much law sits behind the shelf.

Sources

• European Commission, Revision of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/revision-avmsd
• European Commission, public consultation on the AVMSD review (10 February 2026; closed 1 May 2026): https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-seeks-feedback-review-audiovisual-media-legislation
• European Commission, Implementation Dialogue on the AVMSD with EVP Henna Virkkunen (4 May 2026): https://commission.europa.eu/implementation-dialogues/implementation-dialogue-audiovisual-media-services-directive-executive-vice-president-henna-2026-05-04_en
• Global Policy Watch / Covington, call for evidence ahead of the 2026 AVMSD evaluation (Article 33 deadline 19 December 2026): https://www.globalpolicywatch.com/2025/12/the-european-commission-calls-for-evidence-ahead-of-its-2026-evaluation-and-review-of-the-audiovisual-media-services-directive/
• Society of Audiovisual Authors, AVMS Directive briefing (Article 13 and Article 33): https://www.saa-authors.eu/the-avms-directive-landmark-legislation
• Directive 2010/13/EU as revised (AVMSD), Article 33 evaluation clause: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02010L0013-20181218