Your living-room TV used to be dumb in one crucial way: it didn’t get to decide what you watched. The cable box did. The antenna did. You did.
Now the “smart” TV is the bouncer at the door—picking the front-page apps, selling the best real estate on the home screen, and quietly scooping up data about what the household watches. And Europe’s broadcasters are sick of it.
In Brussels, a pack of TV networks and audiovisual trade groups are leaning hard on EU regulators to rein in a market they say is effectively controlled by a handful of manufacturers. Their complaint isn’t about clunky menus. It’s about power: who gets seen, who gets paid, and who gets the data.
Because on a modern set, the home screen, the recommendation rails, the app order, and even the dedicated buttons on the remote can steer audiences like cattle. For broadcasters, that software layer has turned into a tollbooth.
The fight lands right as the EU is already cranking out digital rulebooks—competition, data, platform oversight. Broadcasters argue those laws still don’t fit the TV, a weird hybrid: mass-market screen, ad machine, and gateway to video services all at once. The core question is blunt: who decides what shows up first on a 55-inch screen—about 4.6 feet diagonally—in millions of European homes?
Broadcasters want guaranteed access—and a fair shot—on the home screen
The ask in Brussels: force smart-TV interfaces to play fair. Broadcasters want visibility and non-discrimination rules so a live channel, a catch-up app, or a news service doesn’t get buried behind a manufacturer’s preferred partners—or behind whoever can pay for the top slot.
In the EU conversations, one idea keeps resurfacing: require a “reasonable” place for European audiovisual services, similar to proposals some member countries have already kicked around. Translation for Americans: think of a must-carry vibe, but for the TV’s front page and navigation—not the cable lineup.
Networks say the stakes are immediate. Audience first: if live TV or replay takes three extra clicks, people bail—especially for news, where friction kills. Then advertising: the home screen itself is turning into premium ad inventory. Limited space. Easy to monetize. And if the TV maker controls that storefront, broadcasters fear they’ll get squeezed out of the value chain.
They’re also spooked by automated recommendations that shove viewers toward global streaming catalogs without clearly signaling what’s live TV, what’s catch-up, and what’s a third-party app. Broadcasters argue that a public-interest medium—news, elections, major events—shouldn’t be at the mercy of black-box algorithms tuned to maximize watch time and ad yield.
Manufacturers, for their part, typically say they’re improving the user experience and need freedom to innovate. Broadcasters’ response: fine—innovate. Just don’t lock the front door and charge rent to anyone who wants to reach the audience.
A concentrated TV market means the manufacturers set the terms
The whole dispute rests on a simple reality: the TV hardware market is concentrated. In Brussels, industry players describe it as a small club controlling most sales—and therefore controlling the rules for everyone else: app publishers, streaming platforms, broadcasters, advertisers.
Where distribution used to run through relatively open standards, smart TVs increasingly run closed ecosystems: brand-specific app stores, technical requirements, and commercial terms. If you’re a broadcaster, you’re not negotiating with “the market.” You’re negotiating with a few gatekeepers.
And a TV isn’t a phone. People replace sets less often. Software updates can be uneven. The screen is shared by a household, not one user. So when a manufacturer makes an interface decision—what’s pinned, what’s promoted, what’s hidden—that choice can shape viewing habits for years.
Technical dependence is part of the squeeze. Features like universal search, content aggregation, or integration into electronic program guides require access to interface hooks and sometimes usage data. Manufacturers can favor partners, limit integrations, or attach contract strings. Broadcasters want the EU to draw a bright line between legitimate design choices and tactics that quietly push rivals off the screen.
Even the remote control is a battleground. Dedicated buttons for specific services are valuable commercial property. Broadcasters say those deals systematically tilt audiences toward big platforms. Manufacturers counter that the agreements can subsidize discounts, marketing, or software development. Brussels is being asked to decide when a “partnership” becomes structural capture of audience access.
Data and ads: smart TVs are tracking machines with their own ad business
Smart TVs aren’t just screens anymore. They’re data terminals.
Broadcasters warn that manufacturers can collect detailed usage information at the device level—sometimes across different content sources—because they control the operating system and interface. Even with Europe’s privacy rules, the imbalance remains: the OS owner sees richer behavioral signals than the apps running on top of it.
That feeds directly into targeted advertising. Manufacturers and partners can sell ads on the home screen, inside recommendation rows, or through built-in services. Broadcasters—who fund a lot of programming through advertising—see a new competitor selling ads on the same screen, often with better targeting and measurement.
Then there’s audience measurement. Broadcasters rely on nationally recognized methodologies. TV makers can generate their own metrics from device data. Two measurement regimes, two sets of numbers, one fight over transparency and comparability. Broadcasters want guarantees: fair access to necessary information, harmonized privacy rules, and limits on commercial use of data generated when people watch the broadcasters’ content.
The deeper problem, they argue, is role conflict. When a manufacturer sells ad space on its interface, it’s not just a distributor—it’s an ad seller. And it still controls the gateway to content. Broadcasters want Brussels to treat that combo as a competition risk in a market already dominated by a few companies that can impose their standards.
What the EU could do—starting in 2026
In Brussels, the argument is over tools and timing. Broadcasters want a mix of competition enforcement and sector-specific rules.
The EU already has digital laws aimed at platform power—rules that can target self-preferencing, access restrictions, and transparency failures. Broadcasters say those don’t squarely address the smart-TV reality: prominence rules for audiovisual services, interface neutrality, and access to “must-have” functions.
One path is to stretch existing rules through investigations, negotiated commitments, or penalties for abuse. Broadcasters don’t love that route because it’s slow and proof-heavy. They’re pushing for ex ante obligations—rules that kick in upfront—built around simple principles: non-discriminatory interface access, transparent terms for app installation, and bans on tactics that deliberately degrade rival services.
Regulators also have to juggle industrial politics. TV makers and operating-system vendors argue that heavy-handed rules could weaken competitiveness, security, and a consistent user experience. Broadcasters reply that “innovation” doesn’t justify unilateral control over distribution—especially when the living-room screen is a primary gateway to news and culture.
The clock matters. TV design cycles run months ahead; commercial deals get signed early. Brussels has a choice: move fast to prevent entrenched lock-in, or wait for courtroom-ready cases and risk discovering the market’s already been carved up. Because nobody wins the TV home screen in court. They win it in standards, contracts, and menus.
Sources
Context drawn from sector lobbying efforts in Brussels reported by European press, and shared observations from audiovisual industry actors about concentration in the connected-TV market.
