By dropping a bill that would have forced Big Tech to share profits with journalists, legislators caved to pressure.

How many times did you use an internet search engine today? Sara Rubin here, finding that it’s hard to remember—the practice of googling something is just part of my daily life. Like most of us, I use internet search engines to find all sorts of things—recipes, videos on bike maintenance, news stories. 

Platforms like Google, Facebook and Instagram earn revenue thanks to my clicks and yours. That does not transfer to the people behind all of that content they direct me to—the videographers, photographers, fact-checkers, writers, editors, cookbook authors, Monterey County Weekly journalists, etc. who are putting in the labor to make the fruits of my searches interesting and worthwhile. 

If you are troubled by the idea that Big Tech is profiting off of the journalism produced by journalists without sharing it, I’m right there with you. And so too are some California lawmakers. They were troubled enough to introduce legislation that would have forced Big Tech to share the profits they earn from clicks on journalism content with the journalists who produce it.

Big Tech was dug in on its opposition to AB 886, known as the California Journalism Preservation Act, introduced by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland. But despite the powerful industry’s opposition, legislators appeared ready to line up in support of the bill, which resembles similar legislation in Canada and Australia. 

Until they weren’t. 

The legislative session ended on Saturday, Aug. 31. Ten days before that, the California Journalism Preservation Act died with a whimper. Wicks dropped the bill and announced an agreement with Gov. Gavin Newsom instead, clearly capitulating to pressure from the tech industry. 

Not only does the deal lack the basic profit-sharing premise of AB 886—paying content creators for their content—it comes with provisions that seem to be good for tech and bad for journalism. 

The agreement calls for the creation of a News Transformation Fund, to be administered by the UC Berkeley School of Journalism, starting in 2025. It calls for the creation of a National AI Innovation Accelerator (conspicuously, artificial intelligence, depending on how it’s deployed, can be used to undermine journalism). Combined, the two funds are expected to distribute “nearly $250 million” over five years. Details about how much funding, beyond “the majority,” would go to newsrooms has not been made available, and I got no response from Wicks’ team. 

The announcement came with broad proclamations from Newsom, Wicks, leaders of OpenAI and others. They said things like “Californians depend on robust local and diverse news organizations,” "A vibrant press is crucial for strong communities and a healthy democracy,” “A strong press is a key pillar of democracy.” 

I agree with all of those proclamations, which is why I’m so distraught that the governor and legislature let Big Tech bully them into a compromise that does little to nothing to advance those proclamations. In fact, by investing in AI, it may well advance the erosion of journalistic institutions. 

As a group of journalism union leaders put it, “The future of journalism should not be decided in backroom deals. The Legislature embarked on an effort to regulate monopolies and failed terribly. Now we question whether the state has done more harm than good.”

Watching AB 886 fade away is heartbreaking—and more consequentially, bank-breaking for some news outlets. Google wins at monopoly again, except this monopoly is not a game; it does have consequences for the survival of an industry wound up in democracy and open government, as the very people who negotiated its death were proud to articulate. 

Newsletter

Big Tech avoids journalist profit-sharing. Senior facility reverses eviction. Ode to veggie burgers.