The global film and TV industry is bracing itself as US President Trump prepares to widen his trade war this week. Since taking office, Trump has
The global film and TV industry is bracing itself as US President Trump prepares to widen his trade war this week.
Since taking office, Trump has announced tariffs on imports from countries such as China, Canada and Mexico, and targeted goods including cars and steel.
He is preparing to announce a sweeping round of modern tariffs on imports set to take effect today (April 2), which he has dubbed “Liberation Day”.
How and if the film and TV industry will be targeted is not yet clear. But it seems only a matter of time before filmmakers worldwide are caught up in the trade war in some form.
Trump memo
Trump signalled his intentions to target the film and TV sector in a White House memo published on February 21, titled “Defending American companies and innovators from overseas extortion and unfair fines and penalties”.
The memo was largely focused on regulations and taxes imposed on US technology giants such as Apple, Meta, Google, Amazon and Microsoft.
But it specifically highlighted legislation that “require[s] American streaming services to fund local productions” in many countries around the world.
This section alarmed many in the European film and TV industry. It clearly referred to the EU’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), which allows member states to impose financial obligations on streamers such as Netflix and Disney+ to support the production of European works.
Some 14 European countries, including France, Denmark, Spain and Italy, have so far imposed financial obligations on streamers, leading to a surge of funding for local films and TV shows. Outside Europe, countries such as Canada also mandate that streamers must fund local productions, while Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Thailand and South Korea are mulling plans. In the UK, the BFI is conducting a study on the market impact of a levy on streamers.
Trump’s memo said that such measures “violate American sovereignty and offshore American jobs, limit American companies’ global competitiveness, and increase American operational costs while exposing our sensitive information to potentially hostile foreign regulators.”
It promised action in the form of tariffs or other measures, and called on US businesses to report their concerns.
MPA response
These responses did not take long to arrive. On March 11, the Motion Picture Association (MPA), which represents the leading US studios and streamers, filed an 86-page document to the US Trade Representative that sets out the trading barriers it says its members face worldwide. The MPA submission included specific reports on 30 countries ranging from Australia through to Brazil, China, France, India, Japan, Spain, the UK and Vietnam.
The MPA highlighted “disproportionate investment obligations” in Europe. It also flagged broadcast and VoD quotas that mandate that a minimum of 30% of European content should be shown in European countries.
In the UK, the MPA flagged broadcast and VoD quotas (the UK also imposes a 30% quota for European works in VoD catalogues) and the 2024 Media Act which has paved the way for VoD services to be regulated by Ofcom.
In Asia, it cited local screen and content quotas for theatrical and pay-TV businesses in China, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam, as well as potential moves to introduce local content investment obligations in several countries.
Meanwhile, Canada was accused of maintaining “a web of discriminatory and outdated content quotas for broadcast and pay-TV.”
The MPA argued that “local content quotas, discriminatory or excessive taxes, local content investment obligations, network usage fees, and other related measures have the effect of stifling business development, adding a burdensome barrier to market entry, prejudicing production in the United States and exacerbating online piracy.”
The MPA said that the US does not impose such restrictions on streaming platforms and that they are in effect “non-reciprocal non-tariff barriers”. It did note, however, that the US entertainment sector earned $22.6bn in audiovisual exports and that it is one of the few US industries to consistently generate a positive balance of trade.
In 2023, the services trade surplus was $15.3bn.
DGA and IATSE weigh in
The MPA wasn’t alone in sending a response to the US government. So too did the Directors Guild of America (DGA) and International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) in a joint submission on March 11.
Their submission hit out at “local content quotas on streaming services, predatory tax regimes, local-content-investment obligations, and a myriad of unfair trade practices.”
The DGA and IATSE were particularly critical of the UK and European Union: “Adverse trade practices have been impacting the United States’ film industry for decades. The United Kingdom, several members of the European Union, and many other countries have erected barriers to the distribution of American-made film and television programs,” they wrote.
“These barriers not only depress legitimate licensing and sales, but in some cases add insult to injury by redirecting money that should flow back to the United States by trapping it abroad to fund foreign content production, further exacerbating runaway production.”
They cited France’s investment obligation in French production “equating to 25% of net annual French revenues by video on-demand services.”
To underline the perceived harmful nature of these barriers, the DGA and IATSE argued that the US has seen “a 40% decline in television production in the US relative to 2022 levels.”
It contrasted this with the UK, noting that “65% of the total production costs spent on film in 2024 came from the five major American studios (Disney, Universal, Sony Pictures, Paramount and Warner Bros) and three major US streaming platforms (Netflix, Apple and Amazon) – representing a 49% increase over 2023.”
“While some US states have established their own incentive programs to mitigate runaway production, this piecemeal approach will not achieve significant success in remedying the problem without action at the federal level – including through the elimination of foreign trade barriers.”
European reaction
So far, there has been little reaction at a European level. On March 6, the European Commission responded to criticism about the EU’s Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act, which largely seek to ensure that large tech groups comply with EU law. But nothing was said about the AVMSD.
That prompted MEP Emma Rafowicz, vice chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education, to write an open letter on March 17 to European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, vice-president Henna Virkkunen and culture commissioner Glenn Micallef, signed by 53 other MEPs.
The letter questioned why the commission had not yet spoken up in defence of the AVMS directive, saying it was “currently under crossfire from American streaming platforms who would like unfettered access to the European market”.
“Dismantling the AVMS directive would mark the end of Europe’s conquest of its cultural sovereignty and that of its member states,” said the letter. “It would be a fatal blow to national ecosystems that favor independent production and to cultural diversity.”
Cards on the table
For many European execs, the MPA and DGA/IATSE submissions highlight how the US film and TV industry has jumped on Trump’s trade war bandwagon. The fact that a close US ally like the UK has been singled out by the organisations is also a surprise to many.
On the plus side, the cards are now fully on the table, says Julie-Jeanne Régnault, managing director of the European Producers Club. “It’s a violent offensive against all the founding principles of cultural exception in the audiovisual sector.”
Régnault sees it as an opportunity to unite Europe – not only the EU but also the UK, Switzerland and countries outside Europe like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea – in defence of policies that protect cultural diversity in the film and TV sectors.
Juliette Prissard, general delegate of France’s film and television producers association Eurocinema, says the submissions amount “to a declaration of war” on producers, the AVMSD and the ability of European states to adapt it to their own markets.
At Series Mania last week, Olivier Henrard, deputy managing director of France’s CNC, warned delegates that Europe should expect a “a way more aggressive approach towards our European audiovisual sector” from the US.
The CNC provided figures to show that European countries which have introduced financial obligations saw global streamers augment their scripted commissions in Europe by 140% between 2020 and 2024, against a 1% augment in countries without. In France, where streamers must invest a minimum of 20% of their net French revenue in European works, Disney+, Netflix and Prime Video invested €866m in 2021-23 as part of their obligations.
Henrard said that Europe would have to react collectively. “Europe will need to show its unity on this topic as it is on others, otherwise it risks falling apart,” said Henrard. “I am also convinced that Europe will need to assume that its audiovisual sector is based on and benefits from regulation.”
Why should Europe react? Because audiovisual works are not mere goods, said Henrard. “They are key to shaping our imaginations, to strengthening the sense of belonging to our European cultures, and to promoting our countries and their values abroad, our soft power. Audiovisual works are also a major economic driver, creating jobs and value.”
COMMENTS