European Commission Vice-President for Technology Sovereignty, Security and Democracy Hena Virkunen visited the Cannes Film Festival for the first time on Friday, as Europe’s film industry is outraged over plans for sweeping changes to the EU’s Creative Europe funding programme.
On the eve of the opening of the fest, thousands of European film luminaries, including Pawel Pawlikowski, Lukas Dhondt and Rodrigo Sorogoyen, fired an open letter claiming that the current plan to integrate the EU’s cultural and media elements under the so-called “AgoraEU” initiative would be a major blow to the workings of Creative Europe’s media program. It has been a key driver of the EU’s film and television industry for the past 35 years, supporting recent Oscar-winning films such as Sentimental Values, Mr. Nobody Against Putin, Flow, Anatomy of the Fall and On Her Majesty’s Favorite.
Before meeting with the press in Cannes, Virkunen answered questions from Variety on a wide range of topics. These range from the AgoraEU initiative, which she said “builds on the success of Creative Europe,” to the EU’s artificial intelligence law and the EU Commission’s regulatory approval of the Paramount-WBD merger, the outcome of which, Virkunen noted, “is still unknown and could impact the timeline and content of the acquisition.”
Europe’s film industry has resisted the idea of merging funding for culture and media under the AgoraEU initiative. Do you share their concerns?
I hear these concerns. Nevertheless, I think they are based on a misunderstanding of what AgoraEU is about. It has been more than a decade since culture and audiovisual funding began to coexist under Creative Europe. This combination worked because of the consistent logic that European creativity deserves European support.
AgoraEU goes one step further. It integrates the current CERV program (Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values) and, crucially for this dialogue, creates for the first time a dedicated component within the MEDIA+ strand dedicated to news media.
That’s what sparked a debate within the audiovisual industry, which has fought hard for its own identity and budget. The concern is that these benefits will fade. To be clear, independent production, distribution, distribution and talent development will all continue, and we will build on the success of Creative Europe and strengthen our future efforts to guarantee cultural and linguistic diversity.
However, I think the “logic of merger” criticism misses something important, so I would like to make a broader argument. Filmmakers and investigative journalists work in very different ways. The audiovisual and news media sectors have different value chains, business models, and audiences. But in 2026, we will face the same challenges: global platform dominance, algorithmic distribution, advertising erosion, and the AI revolution. More than that, they share the same underlying purpose. Movies, documentaries, series, journalism. All of these shape how citizens understand the world around them, form opinions, and engage in democratic life.
Protecting a diverse and independent European media space is part of our objective, but also a democratic obligation. This is why we proposed the AgoraEU program. To address the broader question of what kind of European public sphere we want to build for the future.
Regarding the AVMS Directive, when we last spoke (in Venice), we said that the EU would this year “assess” the progress made with the Directive, which is in various stages of implementation across Europe. Did something like this happen? If so, what are the results of this evaluation?
The AVMSD evaluation process has continued since we last spoke in Venice. After launching its assessment in July 2025, the Commission conducted extensive consultations, including stakeholder workshops, calls for evidence, and a public consultation that concluded on 1 May. We are currently preparing an impact assessment and assessing the contributions received to inform next steps ahead of the expected review in the Commission’s work program in Q3 2026. There is no final outcome at this stage as the process is still ongoing.
The purpose of the assessment is to determine whether the current rules remain fit for purpose, taking into account market and technological developments, changes in consumption habits and the emergence of new players such as influencers. Issues being considered include the visibility and prominence of European works, the fairness of advertising markets, and the effectiveness of rules protecting minors from harmful content on video-sharing platforms.
Tell us about the EU’s artificial intelligence law. What are the key takeaways that apply to the field of film and television?
The EU AI Law is the world’s first comprehensive legal framework for AI. Its goal is to ensure that the AI developed and used in Europe is trustworthy, human-centred and respects fundamental rights, while supporting innovation and competitiveness.
Two things are most relevant to the film and television ecosystem.
First of all, transparency. Providers of generative AI systems are obligated to mark AI-generated output (e.g., audio, images, video, text, etc.) in a machine-readable format to ensure that it can be detected as artificially generated or manipulated. In addition, when AI systems are used to generate or manipulate content such as synthetic audio, video, or deepfakes, the deployer of the generative AI system that generates the deepfakes (such as a professional content creator) must clearly disclose that the content is artificially generated or modified.
Second, the AI Act supports compliance with EU copyright law by requiring providers of general-purpose AI models brought to the European market to put in place policies that comply with EU copyright law, including respecting rights holders’ choices not to allow their content to be used to train AI models. Additionally, the AI Act requires providers to publish a sufficiently detailed overview of the data used for training.
The AI Office supports enforcement of AI laws through guidance, templates and codes of practice. Of particular relevance is the chapter on copyright in the Code of Practice on General Purpose AI Models, developed with stakeholders and approved by the European Commission. This includes a commitment to respect opt-out mechanisms and reduce the risk of copyright-infringing output. The AI Secretariat is also facilitating the development of a code of practice for the marking and labeling of AI-generated content under the AI Act’s transparency rules.
I would also like to emphasize that Europe’s approach to AI is not just about regulation. Europe has chosen a framework built on three mutually reinforcing pillars. Alongside the AI Act, the EU is investing in AI infrastructure through the AI Continental Action Plan and accelerating the adoption of AI, including in the media sector, through the Apply AI Strategy. This strategy supports the development and deployment of AI applications such as virtual production, immersive storytelling, and multilingual media services.
Is the threat of Trump tariffs on foreign films shown in the US still looming, even if they are taken seriously?
At this point, there remains great uncertainty regarding President Trump’s announced tax on films made outside the United States, as details regarding its scope and implementation have not been disclosed. The Committee will assess the impact as more specific information becomes available.
Could the EU be an obstacle to the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger?
Concentrations involving companies active in the EU typically require regulatory approval before each transaction can take place. A potential merger between Paramount and Warner Bros. may need to be considered under several EU regulatory frameworks.
In particular, the European Media Freedom Act introduces safeguards to ensure that media concentration is also assessed in terms of its impact on media pluralism and editorial independence, alongside existing EU competition rules such as the EU Merger Regulation and the Foreign Subsidy Regulation, which continue to apply in parallel. The outcome of any of these proceedings, to the extent applicable to this case, is not yet known and may affect the schedule and nature of the acquisition.
