What Berlin proposed, and what Brussels asked
Germany's Culture Minister Wolfram Weimer wants larger streaming services aimed at the German market, private or public-service, to invest 8% of annual net turnover in European audiovisual works. According to netzpolitik.org's 10 September 2026 report, two sub-quotas apply cumulatively: at least 80% of that money must go to European works produced in German, and at least 70% must come from independent producers. The outlet estimates about eleven providers would be covered. The cabinet adopted the draft in May 2026 and sent it to the Bundestag; the Bundesrat commented in July. The bill is circulated as Bundestag Drucksache 21/7820.
The European Commission's comments, first reported by the FAZ, are critical. As netzpolitik.org summarises it, Brussels says the draft appears more concerned with strengthening Germany as a production location than with cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism. It says restrictions on the freedom to provide services must be non-discriminatory and proportionate, that the investment level needs solid evidence and market data so it does not impose an excessive burden, and that Germany does not sufficiently differentiate between providers. It also expressed surprise that the obligation apparently does not reach linear television broadcasters. Weimer's office reportedly described the remarks as a routine step rather than a detailed opinion. We have not seen the Commission's letter itself.
The strongest case for the levy
The argument for intervention is serious. European audiences are served by a handful of global platforms whose commissioning decisions are made abroad, and small-language markets risk seeing little local storytelling funded without a floor. The EU already endorses this logic. The revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive requires on-demand services to keep at least 30% European works in their catalogues and lets member states require financial contributions to European production, including from providers targeting their audiences from other member states, as the Council of Europe's Merlin database explains. Providers with low turnover or low audience are exempt. Germany is not inventing the instrument; contribution schemes are a legitimate tool.
Where the design goes wrong
The number has no visible derivation. The Commission's central question is why 8%. A levy on turnover rather than profit is a cost that scales with revenue regardless of margin. Without market data showing what level sustains production without deterring service launches or catalogue investment, 8% is a political figure, and the Commission is right to say so.
Stacked sub-quotas turn investment into allocation. An 80% German-language floor and a 70% independent floor, applied cumulatively, leave little room for a platform to commission a Danish thriller, a Polish series or a co-production that gets Europe-wide traction. Those are exactly the works the "European works" category exists to promote. Brussels' remark that the draft favours Germany as a production location over diversity captures the tension: language-based sub-quotas fund German production first and European production second. Independent-producer quotas can be defended as a market-structure remedy, but they should be justified by evidence of bargaining imbalance, not stacked on top of a language floor by default.
Leaving out linear TV undermines the rationale. If the aim is to sustain European content and diversity, excluding linear broadcasters invites the question of whether the burden is aimed at foreign-owned platforms. A measure that looks targeted at a category of competitors is harder to defend as proportionate. Consistency would strengthen both the legal case and the cultural one.
A better route
The Bundestag has time to fix these problems before the bill is adopted, and netzpolitik.org expects substantial revision. Four changes would align the bill with proportionate regulation:
- Publish the evidence. Release the market analysis behind the 8% figure and test lower or sliding rates tied to turnover bands, with the AVMSD's low-turnover and low-audience exemptions applied in a clear and objective way.
- Credit investment, not just domestic production spend. Let platforms meet the obligation through co-productions, licensing, and acquisitions of European works from other member states, so the levy supports the single market rather than a national silo.
- Replace stacked quotas with a single floor or a flexible basket. A German-language target can sit alongside an overall European target, with platforms choosing how to balance them.
- Treat comparable services comparably. Either bring linear broadcasters into the scheme or explain objectively why they are different.
The Commission's AVMSD policy page points member states to its guidelines on European works, which address how the 30% share is calculated and how the low-audience and low-turnover exemptions work. Germany would do well to build its scheme on that foundation.
The risk of getting it wrong
Streaming investment is mobile. Platforms decide where to commission, and a levy perceived as protectionist or arbitrary can push spending toward markets with predictable rules. Weimer's office says the bill needs no formal EU approval, and that may be technically defensible. But a law that invites infringement proceedings or a legal challenge adds uncertainty for the very producers it is meant to help. The sound response to the Commission is not to dismiss the letter but to answer its questions with data, and to design a scheme that producers across Europe could also benefit from.