Trump’s shifting trade world – and why publishers need to pay attention
In the wake of US president Trump’s trade tariffs and the ensuing rout in global stock markets, international media companies, most notably those trading in intellectual property and digital licensing, are watching attentively from the sidelines. Hopefully, as you read this, most publishing-related services will be exempt from tariffs and shielded by the distinctions between goods and services.
But don’t breathe a sigh of relief just yet. There are indications that the European Union may consider retaliatory measures targeting digital services – a sector where the US runs a trade surplus. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is quoted by Reuters as saying the EU is prepared to respond with countermeasures if negotiations fail with US service exports, which will include those from Big Tech. Euronews reports Brussels may deploy its new anti-coercion instrument, potentially impacting intellectual property rights and business licenses of US firms operating in Europe.
Responding “proportionally”
In a further sign of escalation, the European Union has indicated it may deploy its newly established Anti-Coercion Instrument, a legislative tool designed to deter and respond to economic intimidation by third countries. This instrument allows the EU to retaliate swiftly if it deems that the US tariffs unjustly target European interests – and retaliation could include suspending intellectual property rights, revoking licenses, or restricting public procurement access for US firms operating in the EU. While primarily aimed at state-level coercion, its application could draw digital services into the crosshairs, with far-reaching consequences for US media and tech companies with European partners or clients.
Speaking at a press briefing in Paris, French President Emmanuel Macron made it clear that Europe is prepared to respond proportionally to US tariffs – with digital services squarely on the radar. “If the US chooses to target European goods, Europe must consider how best to respond,” Macron said. “This includes measures on digital platforms and services where American companies dominate.” His remarks add to a growing sense among European policymakers that Big Tech – and by extension, digital media and content licensing – could be used as leverage in a retaliatory trade response.
Effectively, this leaves publishers in a grey zone around IP and digital content and media executives are rightly concerned that global licensing, syndication deals and even software-as-a-service platforms could become collateral damage in these economic border wars.
This is a time for stronger industry representation. Media associations like FIPP, WAN-IFRA and ENPA will have to step forward not only to advocate for the sector’s unique position in the digital economy, but also to provide clarity and leadership in a fragmented and fast-evolving trade environment.
For publishing executives, this is more than a trade skirmish – it’s about protecting core revenue streams, ensuring deal stability across borders, and staying ahead of reclassifications that could suddenly turn ‘services’ into ‘taxable goods.’
Webinar: AI Update
Wednesday, 16 April 2025 | 3pm BST
Featuring exclusive research by Miso.ai’s Sentinel team for FIPP and PPA on unauthorised use of publisher content and actionable strategies to protect and capitalise on it.
A fine line between digital goods and services
The current uncertainty exists because there is a lack of clarity on the difference between a digital service versus digital goods. For publishers, this murkiness could influence how cross-border licensing, distribution and monetisation play out.
As an example, subscriptions are classified as services, but if bundled with downloadable content like a PDF, could the delivery mechanism change its classification? Further, publishers offer syndicated research or white-label content and often package these in a way that resembles both SaaS platforms and media archives. Or are e-books and digital editions digital? They are sold as a one-off downloadable product, but it could be argued that they are akin to physical books delivered by a platform such as Kindle and Apple Books.
Some US legal analysts have warned that digital trade disputes may hinge on this often-blurred definition of goods versus services, and the WTO has yet to establish fully modernised frameworks to address them.
So what will happen should these classifications change? If regulators or trade negotiators choose to reclassify certain digital offerings as ‘goods’ rather than services, the implications could be profound because it would be liable to tariff exposure. This could turn licensing deals, syndicated content, and digital archives on its head, attracting import/export tariffs depending on where the buyer or subscriber resides.
Now ask how this would impact contract renegotiations for, let’s say, existing B2B licensing or syndication agreements or compliance costs for digital goods declarations, and the script of a horror movie starts to unfold.
If aggregators, digital magazine platforms and archive vendors get caught in a web of overlapping trade regimes, especially if the EU enforces retaliatory measures aimed at US digital exports, marketplace disruption will be rife.
What are the possible implications for publishers?
The ripple effect of Trump’s so-called ‘Liberation day’ could be anything but liberating for the world of digital media, with profound consequences if licensing, syndication or SaaS platforms are drawn into trade tensions. Large licensors like Condé Nast, Mansueto and Bonnier who rely on multi-market licensing may face renegotiation or uncertainty in key European markets.
Cross-border partnerships with small and mid-sized publishers could be delayed or derailed by legal or regulatory uncertainty, especially if digital services come under scrutiny.
B2B and niche vertical publishers, which often depend on licensed American IP, branded content or editorial packages, could find themselves exposed to regulatory friction.
Pressure points could rise in countries like France, Germany, the Nordics and Spain, where US media brands have strong reputational and operational presence, should trade relations sour.
Even if tariffs aren’t yet applied to services, the threat alone may prompt a defensive shift in contract terms, pricing models, or licensing territories. This is a slow chill that could unsettle the global content economy.
Moreover, if tariffs or related trade barriers affect work visas, equipment imports, or service contractors, co-productions between European and US firms will be more complex. Consequently limiting international collaboration, especially on mid-budget projects reliant on shared resources. In a world where the media is still coming to grips with digital disruption nobody can afford this.
Is there anything we can do?
If there is one thing publishers can do right now to minimise risk amid this potential scenario, it is to ensure that contracts delineate between goods and services. This will help navigate classification disputes should new tariffs or digital trade measures emerge.
It may also be prudent to reconsider licensing models reliant on cross-border transactions. The Licensing Executives Society International (LESI) highlights that cross-border licensing transactions often encounter risks due to differing legal systems, cultural misunderstandings and regulatory compliance. Localising content partnerships, or working through regional entities, may reduce friction.
Companies must check with legal experts to work out how their products, in this case archives, databases, e-publications and SaaS tools are classified. This could ensure alignment with WTO definitions and regional laws, and could mitigate future disputes.
Staying ahead of the curve
In this uncertain place for publishers, leaders can’t afford to be passive observers. The definitions that shield digital publishing from tariffs today could shift tomorrow. With licensing, IP and syndication sitting on the edge of a grey zone, executives must clarify contracts, pressure-test their cross-border strategies and rely on trade associations for visibility and advocacy.
We are already navigating one of the most disruptive technological eras in history. A trade war layered on top makes it all the more vital to get ahead of the curve – before it gets ahead of us.
