In October 2026 the Irish Government published amendments to the Media Regulation Bill 2026 (No. 19 of 2026). According to A&L Goodbody's 3 November 2026 update, the Dáil has completed its stages and the bill is at Committee Stage in the Seanad. The firm does not give an exact October date for the amendments. The bill turns Coimisiún na Meán (CnaM) from a broadcasting and online-safety regulator into Ireland's media-merger authority. It also gives the regulator a new job: policing how smart TVs, set-top boxes and other devices present media services.
What the bill does
The bill was published on 26 February 2026, according to McCann FitzGerald's analysis. It moves full responsibility for assessing media mergers from the Minister to CnaM. The regulator must form a view on whether a deal "will be contrary to the public interest in protecting plurality of the media and editorial independence in the State". It also adds a call-in power over transactions that are not notifiable media mergers but could significantly affect pluralism or editorial independence. A&L Goodbody reports that a notifiable target must carry on a media business in Ireland, meaning sales there of at least €2 million in its most recent financial year.
The October amendments go further. A&L Goodbody says they extend CnaM's investigation and sanction powers. They also create a compliance-notice and complaints regime for alleged breaches of Articles 20(2) and 20(3) of the European Media Freedom Act by device manufacturers, developers and importers. A&L Goodbody describes those articles as concerning the right to customise the media offering on devices and user interfaces. Regulation (EU) 2024/1083 is the underlying instrument. Most of it has applied since August 2025, but Article 20 applies from May 2027.
The strongest case for the bill
The case for acting is real. Media ownership concentration can erode editorial independence in ways that ordinary competition analysis misses. A merger can clear a competition test on price and still shrink the number of independent newsrooms. Moving the assessment out of a ministerial office and into an independent regulator with a statutory test also removes an obvious political conflict of interest. A single body that publishes its reasoning is more predictable than ad hoc ministerial review.
The device rules also answer a real concern. If a TV operating system decides which news app is prominent, or buries a public-service broadcaster, gatekeeping has simply moved from the broadcaster to the device maker. Having a national complaints route is better than leaving enforcement to Brussels.
Where proportionality is at risk
The merger half of the bill is largely defensible, with some caveats. A pluralism test is worth having only if it is administered narrowly. The call-in power is the pressure point. A regulator that can review any transaction touching a media business, on its own motion, creates uncertainty for investors in Irish publishers and start-ups. Small outlets with thin margins often depend on a sale to survive. A review that stretches closing timelines can cost a struggling title more than a merger would.
The €2 million Irish-sales threshold narrows what must be notified. The call-in power and the voluntary notification route sit outside that threshold. They should come with published criteria, short statutory deadlines and a duty to give reasons. An unpredictable review can chill deals that would have kept titles alive.
The bill also extends a criminal "gun-jumping" offence to the implementation of a notifiable media merger without approval, as McCann FitzGerald describes. Criminal liability for a closing-timing error is a heavy tool for a pluralism test whose edges are still being drawn. Civil penalties would be enough.
The device regime is the bigger unknown
The device provisions are newer and less settled. Article 20 does not apply until May 2027, yet the amendments set up a complaints and compliance-notice machine more than a year ahead of the obligations it enforces. The framework is aimed at manufacturers, developers and importers. Many are non-Irish firms that sell into the whole EU single market and cannot easily adapt a product for one member state's enforcement style.
There is also a free-expression question. Rules about how a device presents media services are, in effect, rules about prominence and discoverability. These are editorial judgments, even when made by a machine. A regulator that can issue compliance notices over interface design needs a principled line between protecting user choice and dictating how products must look. Neither the bill nor the public summaries I could verify say where that line falls, and CnaM's guidance should supply it before 2027.
The bill also stacks a second layer of obligations on devices. The same Irish regulator that reviews media deals and enforces online-safety rules would now arbitrate disputes about hardware settings. That concentration of functions in one body is efficient. It also means that if CnaM's approach to proportionality is weak, the weakness spreads across all of its work.
What to watch
Because the Seanad has adopted amendments, A&L Goodbody notes the bill would typically return to the Dáil before enactment. That is the last practical chance to tighten the text. Three fixes would keep the bill proportionate:
- Put statutory time limits on call-in decisions and on any Phase 2 review.
- Require CnaM to publish its pluralism and editorial-independence criteria, and to consult before issuing device guidance.
- Make graduated, civil remedies the default for the device regime. Start with compliance notices and escalate only on repeated non-compliance.
Ireland has a credible case for independent merger review of media. It should not let a sensible pluralism safeguard grow into open-ended discretion over deals and product design.