Australian furniture retailers may soon face an unexpected challenge not from competitors or supply chains, but from legislation targeting digital platforms.
The federal government is preparing to use its powers under the News Media Bargaining Code to formally designate Meta (Facebook and Instagram), requiring it to pay for the presence of certain Australian content on its platforms. Meta has responded by confirming it will remove that content altogether.
While the law is not aimed at retailers, the consequences may be hard to avoid for businesses that rely heavily on Meta or Google to reach customers and drive online sales.
What’s Changing
The News Media Bargaining Code, passed in 2021, created a legal framework that allows the government to “designate” platforms, forcing them to negotiate compensation deals for certain types of local content. Google entered into agreements. Meta initially did but let those expire.
In February 2024, the Australian Government announced its intent to designate Meta, compelling it back into the framework. Meta rejected the move and stated it would remove all such content from its platforms in Australia.
This standoff has already drawn international attention. The United States Trade Representative raised concerns in its 2024 trade report, calling the legislation a “barrier to digital trade.” Meta has called it “unworkable.”
How This Affects Furniture Retailers
Most Australian furniture retailers now rely on digital platforms for core business activities: advertising, customer acquisition, retargeting, catalogue syncing, and seasonal promotions.
If Meta’s response to legal pressure includes pulling services, changing ad formats, or restricting access to business tools as it has done in the past, retailers could see immediate commercial impacts, including:
These outcomes are not speculative. In 2021, during an earlier phase of this same law, Meta removed all news content from Australian Facebook feeds and mistakenly blocked unrelated pages, including public health services.
No Legal Protection for Advertisers
Furniture businesses are not parties to the Code, and they have no legal remedy if platform responses affect their operations.
Standard platform terms give Meta and Google broad discretion to modify services, change pricing, or withdraw tools without consultation. If campaign costs rise or visibility shrinks, advertisers must absorb those changes under existing agreements.
In legal terms, this is a downstream consequence of regulation, one that places the commercial burden on platform users, rather than on the regulated entities themselves.
International Pressure, Local Risk
The tension isn’t limited to Australian borders. The U.S. has formally criticised the policy, and large tech firms are escalating their lobbying efforts globally.
While there’s no confirmed retaliation at this stage, the pressure may influence how platforms treat the Australian market, particularly if compliance becomes more expensive or operationally complex.
Retailers may experience the impact not through a formal announcement but through gradual reductions in support, slower rollout of features, or rising ad rates.
What Retailers Can Do Now
Most furniture retailers work through agencies or digital service providers to manage their advertising across Meta and Google. While that setup offers convenience, it also masks a key legal risk, when platforms restrict access to tools or ad services, it’s the retailer who absorbs the fallout, not the agency.
Our legal partner, Lazarus Legal can help you review your current contracts to identifywhether they’re exposed to the following risks:
- Fees during platform downtime or disruption
If Meta disables key business tools like catalogue syncing, audience targeting, or ad placements, will your agency still charge full fees? Many retainers and percentage-of-spend agreements continue regardless of platform functionality. Most retailers don’trealise they’re paying full price during what is effectively a blackout period. - No termination or renegotiation rights
Very few media or marketing agreements include clauses that allow you to pause, exit, or renegotiate if core platform features are withdrawn. If your marketing strategy depends on Meta and that tool becomes unavailable, you may be locked into a contract designed for a world that no longer exists. - Lack of access and control over your data
In many cases, the agency owns the ad account, Meta Pixel, catalogue feed, and analytics setup. If the relationship breaks down or if you need to shift platforms quickly, you may lose access to vital data, audiences, and performance insights. That can delay recovery, increase spend, and impact revenue. - No legal framework for switching strategies
Contracts rarely deal with how quickly a strategy can pivot if a platform changes policy. Without clear service level terms or re-scoping rights, retailers are stuck waiting while agencies scramble with no contractual obligation to act quickly or reprioritise.
Mark Lazarus and his team at Lazarus legal work with our retailers to correct these issues. That may involve restructuring contracts to include blackout clauses, regaining ownership of platform assets, or creating fallback terms for rapid re-scoping. They also help retailers stay compliant with privacy laws when building direct marketing lists, an essential hedge as platform-based advertising becomes less reliable.
The law can’t stop Meta or Google from changing course, but it can give you the contractual leverage to respond without being trapped or overcharged when they do.
Final Thought
Australia’s efforts to regulate digital platforms may be aimed at balancing power, but they come with commercial side effects. Furniture retailers, while not involved in the legislation, remain tightly linked to the platforms caught in the legal dispute.
Understanding the risks now before they reach your ad budget or checkout funnel, could make all the difference in navigating what’s ahead.
Want to know more? Contact Mark at Lazarus Legal HERE