Report March 2025

Submitted

Your organisation description

Advertising

Commitment 1

Relevant signatories participating in ad placements commit to defund the dissemination of disinformation, and improve the policies and systems which determine the eligibility of content to be monetised, the controls for monetisation and ad placement, and the data to report on the accuracy and effectiveness of controls and services around ad placements.

We signed up to the following measures of this commitment

Measure 1.6

In line with this commitment, did you deploy new implementation measures (e.g. changes to your terms of service, new tools, new policies, etc)?

No.

If yes, list these implementation measures here

Do you plan to put further implementation measures in place in the next 6 months to substantially improve the maturity of the implementation of this commitment?

If yes, which further implementation measures do you plan to put in place in the next 6 months?

Measure 1.6

Relevant Signatories will advance the development, improve the availability, and take practical steps to advance the use of brand safety tools and partnerships, with the following goals: - To the degree commercially viable, relevant Signatories will provide options to integrate information and analysis from source-raters, services that provide indicators of trustworthiness, fact-checkers, researchers or other relevant stakeholders providing information e.g., on the sources of Disinformation campaigns to help inform decisions on ad placement by ad buyers, namely advertisers and their agencies. - Advertisers, agencies, ad tech companies, and media platforms and publishers will take effective and reasonable steps to integrate the use of brand safety tools throughout the media planning, buying and reporting process, to avoid the placement of their advertising next to Disinformation content and/or in places or sources that repeatedly publish Disinformation. - Brand safety tool providers and rating services who categorise content and domains will provide reasonable transparency about the processes they use, insofar that they do not release commercially sensitive information or divulge trade secrets, and that they establish a mechanism for customer feedback and appeal.

QRE 1.6.3

Signatories that provide brand safety tools will outline how they are ensuring transparency and appealability about their processes and outcomes.

NewsGuard’s brand safety service, BrandGuard, enables brands to invest in ad inventory on news sites that publish trustworthy journalism, and avoid placing ads on sites that repeatedly publish mis- or disinformation. BrandGuard offers multiple “inclusion” and “exclusion” list options, enabling brands to tailor their approach to account for their values while enforcing the publisher’s right to be heard.

BrandGuard’s inclusion and exclusion lists are based entirely on NewsGuard’s Reliability Ratings of news and information websites, which are compiled by a team of experienced journalists based on nine apolitical journalistic criteria. Our rigorous rating process is explained in detail on our website, on a page called “Website Rating Process and Criteria.”

As the page describes, our process is transparent and accountable to everyone involved—including publishers, advertisers, and the general public. Each criterion is defined at length, with numerous examples of how a publisher would pass or fail the criterion. For each rating, we provide a written Nutrition Label report that explains why NewsGuard made its determination on each of the criteria.

Unlike other brand safety providers that rely on black box algorithms, NewsGuard’s journalists contact any publisher that fails any of the nine criteria before publishing a rating. Publishers may address any issues to increase their score or provide comments, which are included in the Nutrition Label report so that advertisers may judge for themselves whether the publisher should be monetized. Once a rating or update is published, we notify websites of their scores so that they are aware of any issues that could lead to their exclusion from an ad inventory.

This transparent process allows publishers not only the right of reply — but an opportunity to improve. More than 2,230 websites have taken steps to improve editorial practices after being contacted by our team — leading advertisers in some cases to monetize their websites.

QRE 1.6.4

Relevant Signatories that rate sources to determine if they persistently publish Disinformation shall provide reasonable information on the criteria under which websites are rated, make public the assessment of the relevant criteria relating to Disinformation, operate in an apolitical manner and give publishers the right to reply before ratings are published.

NewsGuard’s ratings for news websites are based on nine apolitical criteria that assess the website’s credibility and transparency. Each criterion is worth a certain number of points out of 100, weighted based on importance. All criteria are pass-fail, meaning that a site either receives all of the points associated with the criterion or receives no points for that criterion, and are applied in a way that ensures a publisher’s right to be heard.

All of our criteria and the associated points are publicly available on a page of our website called “Website Rating Process and Criteria” that provides a detailed explanation of each criterion and lists examples of reasons that a site might pass or fail this criterion. To ensure our process remains strictly apolitical, NewsGuard relies on apolitical criteria when rating a site and carries out a manual and rigorous editing process involving approximately five journalists and editors per website rating, ensuring no rating is the assessment of a single person. The most debated analyses undergo a final review step in which it is shared with the full team of NewsGuard analysts, including the two co-CEOs, to raise any issues and ensure consistency.

Before publishing a rating or update, we always seek feedback from publishers that fail any of our criteria. Each assessment of a website is made public via NewsGuard’s browser extension, which is available for public subscription, and is personally sent to each publisher evaluated, when it is published for the first time, and after each update. NewsGuard subscribers and rated publishers can read NewsGuard’s detailed analyses, called “Nutrition Labels,” which explain why NewsGuard made its determination on each of the criteria, provide evidence and examples to back up its assessments, and include any relevant comments from the publisher. Additionally, we also invite publishers who disagree with our rating to provide feedback on a dedicated page of our website.

Empowering Users

Commitment 17

In light of the European Commission's initiatives in the area of media literacy, including the new Digital Education Action Plan, Relevant Signatories commit to continue and strengthen their efforts in the area of media literacy and critical thinking, also with the aim to include vulnerable groups.

We signed up to the following measures of this commitment

Measure 17.2 Measure 17.3

In line with this commitment, did you deploy new implementation measures (e.g. changes to your terms of service, new tools, new policies, etc)?

No.

If yes, list these implementation measures here

Do you plan to put further implementation measures in place in the next 6 months to substantially improve the maturity of the implementation of this commitment?

If yes, which further implementation measures do you plan to put in place in the next 6 months?

Measure 17.2

Relevant Signatories will develop, promote and/or support or continue to run activities to improve media literacy and critical thinking such as campaigns to raise awareness about Disinformation, as well as the TTPs that are being used by malicious actors, among the general public across the European Union, also considering the involvement of vulnerable communities.

QRE 17.2.1

Relevant Signatories will describe the activities they launch or support and the Member States they target and reach. Relevant signatories will further report on actions taken to promote the campaigns to their user base per Member States targeted.

In 2024, NewsGuard participated in numerous media literacy events with journalists, librarians, teachers and citizens on topics ranging from how AI is being used in disinformation campaigns, to spotting unreliable sources. The events took place in several Member States: France, Italy, Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal, and Spain.

Such events have included lessons on misinformation and disinformation for students at Padua University, Luiss University, LUMSA University, Salerno University, and La Sapienza University in Italy but also at the New Bulgarian University (Bulgaria), and at the National & Kapodistrian University of Athens (Greece); classes at the Paris’ Interdisciplinary Center for Strategic Studies and for high school pupils in the south of France; and webinars with librarians and school teachers in Italy and France.

Throughout the year, NewsGuard was regularly involved in initiatives led by IDMO, the Italian Digital Media Observatory, of which NewsGuard is a member.

Our editors have also spoken at conferences to raise awareness on specific issues related to mis- and disinformation, in several Member States, including Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. These events included a panel on “Disinformation at the heart of conflicts” at the Military School in Paris, a keynote on the risks of generative AI at Italy’s AI week; a panel at the plenary assembly of the Club of Venice on the “Challenges of communicating the EU enlargement and the progress in countering disinformation” in Slovenia; and a presentation on the need for transparency in the age of AI at the European Media and Information Fund Summer Conference in Lisbon, Portugal.

In 2024, NewsGuard also continued providing its browser extension for free to more than 900 public libraries throughout the world, including approximately 200 public libraries in Italy, France, Germany and Slovenia.

SLI 17.2.1

Relevant Signatories report on number of media literacy and awareness raising activities organised and or participated in and will share quantitative information pertinent to show the effects of the campaigns they build or support at the Member State level.

In 2024, NewsGuard participated in 15 media literacy seminars and awareness raising events in France, Italy, Bulgaria, and Greece. These events reached a total number of approximately 550 participants, including educators and librarians who in turn could reach hundreds of students and library users. NewsGuard also participated in 41 speaking engagements in Italy, France, Belgium, Slovenia, Romania, Ireland, Portugal, Cyprus, Sweden, reaching more than 5,350 attendees.

Country	Nr of media literacy/ awareness raising activities organised/ participated in	Nr of participants
Austria	0	0
Belgium	1	25
Bulgaria	1	20
Croatia	0	0
Cyprus	1	100
Czech Republic	0	0
Denmark	0	0
Estonia	0	0
Finland	0	0
France	14	1859
Germany	3	220
Greece	1	15
Hungary	0	0
Ireland	1	25
Italy	29	3460
Latvia	0	0
Lithuania	0	0
Luxembourg	0	0
Malta	0	0
Netherlands	0	0
Poland	0	0
Portugal	1	100
Romania	1	30
Slovakia	0	0
Slovenia	1	50
Spain	1	40
Sweden	1	40
Iceland	0	0
Liechtenstein	0	0
Norway	0	0

Measure 17.3

For both of the above Measures, and in order to build on the expertise of media literacy experts in the design, implementation, and impact measurement of tools, relevant Signatories will partner or consult with media literacy experts in the EU, including for instance the Commission's Media Literacy Expert Group, ERGA's Media Literacy Action Group, EDMO, its country-specific branches, or relevant Member State universities or organisations that have relevant expertise.

For both of the above Measures, and in order to build on the expertise of media literacy experts in the design, implementation, and impact measurement of tools, relevant Signatories will partner or consult with media literacy experts in the EU, including for instance the Commission’s Media Literacy Expert Group, ERGA’s Media Literacy Action Group, EDMO, its country-specific branches, or relevant Member State universities or organizations that have relevant expertise.

QRE 17.3.1

Relevant Signatories will describe how they involved and partnered with media literacy experts for the purposes of all Measures in this Commitment.

Through the Italian Digital Media Observatory’s portal, NewsGuard regularly makes its content and analysis on disinformation in Italy and in Europe public, contributing to the consortium’s media literacy efforts.

NewsGuard has various partnerships and collaborations with research institutions and universities that study disinformation, such as La Sapienza University in Rome, Ca’ Foscari University in Venice, Carlo Bo University in Urbino, University of Salerno, the European University Institute in Florence, the Italian National Research Council, Tilburg University in The Netherlands, Stockholm University in Sweden, the university of Bamberg in Germany and the German Max-Planck-Institute.

A 2024 study published in the “Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media” examined the use of NewsGuard’s Reliability Ratings in academic research. The paper—authored by researchers from TU Graz, the University of Vienna, the Medical University of Vienna, and RWTH Aachen University—concluded that NewsGuard has become the most widely used and comprehensive dataset in this space, using a rigorous and transparent methodology, without exhibiting any political bias.

NewsGuard's Reliability Ratings are also integrated into Microsoft Search Coach, a free app in Microsoft Teams that helps educators and students produce effective queries and identify reliable resources when conducting online research. Search Coach is available globally in 38 different languages.

Commitment 22

Relevant Signatories commit to provide users with tools to help them make more informed decisions when they encounter online information that may be false or misleading, and to facilitate user access to tools and information to assess the trustworthiness of information sources, such as indicators of trustworthiness for informed online navigation, particularly relating to societal issues or debates of general interest.

We signed up to the following measures of this commitment

Measure 22.4 Measure 22.5

In line with this commitment, did you deploy new implementation measures (e.g. changes to your terms of service, new tools, new policies, etc)?

No.

If yes, list these implementation measures here

Do you plan to put further implementation measures in place in the next 6 months to substantially improve the maturity of the implementation of this commitment?

If yes, which further implementation measures do you plan to put in place in the next 6 months?

Measure 22.4

Relevant Signatories providing trustworthiness indicators will ensure that information sources are being reviewed in a transparent, apolitical, unbiased, and independent manner, applying fully disclosed criteria equally to all sources and allowing independent audits by independent regulatory authorities or other competent bodies.

QRE 22.4.1

Relevant Signatories will provide details of the basic criteria they use to review information sources and disclose relevant safeguards put in place to ensure that their services are apolitical, unbiased, and independent. They will provide examples of how these are applied equally to a representative range of different publishers. Each analysis will indicate who contributed to assessing the source, or which certification body assessed the source.

Our ratings are based on nine apolitical and basic journalistic criteria that refer to the credibility and transparency of a news or information site. Our nine criteria are applied equally to all news sites, no matter their size or political orientation, from mainstream media outlets to small blogs, while allowing all sites to exert their right to be heard.

Our criteria are basic journalistic principles and are inherently apolitical. They are also completely transparent and explained in great detail on our website, along with the relative weighting of each criterion, depending on its importance.

Our rating process is designed to ensure our criteria are applied in an unbiased manner. After an analyst produces a first rating, with an associated Nutrition Label explaining in detail why he or she arrived at such a rating, the analysis is edited by at least two editors. Then, if any doubt remains about how to apply a specific criterion, it is discussed during a full staff meeting hosted by our two co-CEOs and co-Editors-in-Chief, Steven Brill and Gordon Crovitz. Over the years, this process has led NewsGuard to assign high ratings and poor ratings to sites of all political leanings.

To ensure fairness, publishers are also put at the center of our rating process and given a chance to comment whenever our team flags an issue with the credibility or transparency of their site.

For the sake of accountability, readers can see the credentials and backgrounds of everyone responsible for every NewsGuard Reliability Rating and Nutrition Label that they read.

We also allow users to submit suggestions of sources to rate, if we have not yet rated them, and to send feedback on existing ratings.

Finally, to ensure complete independence, we accept no fees from websites for rating them. Our revenue comes from license fees that platforms, ad agencies, brands, media monitoring companies, AI companies, and researchers — among other groups — pay to use our data.

Measure 22.5

Relevant Signatories providing trustworthiness indicators will provide compliance and correction mechanisms and respect the right of publishers to be heard, including to engage in the assessment process before indicators are applied and to have their responses available to consumers after assessments are published.

QRE 22.5.1

Relevant Signatories will publish regular corrections on their ratings or indicators if updates or mistakes occur. Relevant Signatories will provide examples of exchanges with publishers, including evidence of this engagement as recorded in trustworthiness indicators, and will regularly update their analysis to reflect any changes in the publications' practices, including any improvement of their practices.

NewsGuard is committed to making clear, prominent corrections of any mistakes that appear in our ratings or Nutrition Labels. Our corrections policy is stated on a dedicated page on our website, which includes a form where users can report possible errors for us to review. The corrections appear as notes at the bottom of the relevant Nutrition Label analyses, making clear what the original error was and how it has been corrected.

Publishers can also send requests for corrections and have the opportunity to note any error in our ratings and write-ups when they receive our Nutrition Labels, since we systematically send publishers our initial ratings and updates after they are published, thus enforcing their right to be heard.

All of our Nutrition Labels are also regularly updated. We update labels in our database on average once a year, although we update the most engaged websites more regularly (every six months), and also update ratings more frequently if we become aware of a change in the publication’s practices. When a site’s rating changes because the site has improved its practices, this specific change is described in an editor’s note. We also engage in lengthy conversations with publishers to help them understand how they can meet certain criteria and improve their score.

For example, in March 2024, Austrian regional news website Unsertirol24.com’s score went from 44.5/100 to 62.5/100 after it started labeling press releases more transparently. In December 2024, as the result of engaging with NewsGuard, the staff of Scinexx.de, a German science magazine, added information about its content creators, thus improving its score from 95/100 to 100/100. In December 2024, the score of French right-wing website LaLettrePatriote.com went from 47/100 to 69.5/100 after the site added an Editorial Team page providing a directory of its staff, identified its publishing director, and added clear correction notes in past articles after engaging with NewsGuard.

SLI 22.5.1

Relevant signatories will report on the total number of instances per Member State where, following a publisher exercising its right to be heard before a rating or updated rating is issued, a rating of untrustworthy changes to a rating of trustworthy.

In 2024, 16 websites from our European database (7 French-language, 4 Italian-language, and 5 in German) saw their rating go from untrustworthy (below 60/100) to trustworthy (60/100 and above), including TopSante.com, the website of a French monthly health and wellness magazine that publishes general medical information, and that had advanced unsubstantiated claims about natural remedies in the past.

All our score changes are recorded internally in the site’s rating history, as well as noted in editor’s notes at the bottom of each Nutrition Label. Data measurement is therefore easily done by looking at the ratings and updates published in the timeframe concerned. We also record whether sites have responded to our inquiries, and which practice they’ve improved after engaging with us.

Country	Total Nr of instances when a publisher’s rating changed from untrustworthy to trustworthy following a hearing before a rating/updated rating is issued
Austria	1
Belgium	0
Bulgaria	0
Croatia	0
Cyprus	0
Czech Republic	0
Denmark	0
Estonia	0
Finland	0
France	7
Germany	4
Greece	0
Hungary	0
Ireland	0
Italy	4
Latvia	0
Lithuania	0
Luxembourg	0
Malta	0
Netherlands	0
Poland	0
Portugal	0
Romania	0
Slovakia	0
Slovenia	0
Spain	0
Sweden	0
Iceland	0
Liechtenstein	0
Norway	0

SLI 22.5.2

Relevant Signatories will report regularly on the number of publishers who have improved their journalistic practices after being assessed on the disclosed criteria and whose conformity, respectively trustworthiness scores thereby improved.

Since NewsGuard launched in 2018, 2,230 news and information websites around the world (in the E.U. but also in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K.) have improved their journalism practices after engaging with us, increasing their accountability and providing readers with more trustworthy news and information.

In 2024, 56 French-language websites, 35 Italian-language websites, and 25 German-language websites improved their NewsGuard ratings.

All our score changes are recorded in our database and explained in editor’s notes at the bottom of each Nutrition Label.

Country	Total Nr of publishers who improved their score under the trustworthiness indicator
Austria	4
Belgium	0
Bulgaria	0
Croatia	0
Cyprus	0
Czech Republic	0
Denmark	0
Estonia	0
Finland	0
France	56
Germany	21
Greece	0
Hungary	0
Ireland	0
Italy	35
Latvia	0
Lithuania	0
Luxembourg	0
Malta	0
Netherlands	0
Poland	0
Portugal	0
Romania	0
Slovakia	0
Slovenia	0
Spain	0
Sweden	0
Iceland	0
Liechtenstein	0
Norway	0

Permanent Task-Force

Commitment 37

Signatories commit to participate in the permanent Task-force. The Task-force includes the Signatories of the Code and representatives from EDMO and ERGA. It is chaired by the European Commission, and includes representatives of the European External Action Service (EEAS). The Task-force can also invite relevant experts as observers to support its work. Decisions of the Task-force are made by consensus.

We signed up to the following measures of this commitment

Measure 37.1 Measure 37.2 Measure 37.3 Measure 37.4 Measure 37.5 Measure 37.6

In line with this commitment, did you deploy new implementation measures (e.g. changes to your terms of service, new tools, new policies, etc)?

No.

If yes, list these implementation measures here

Do you plan to put further implementation measures in place in the next 6 months to substantially improve the maturity of the implementation of this commitment?

No.

If yes, which further implementation measures do you plan to put in place in the next 6 months?

Measure 37.6

Signatories agree to notify the rest of the Task-force when a Commitment or Measure would benefit from changes over time as their practices and approaches evolve, in view of technological, societal, market, and legislative developments. Having discussed the changes required, the Relevant Signatories will update their subscription document accordingly and report on the changes in their next report.

QRE 37.6.1

Signatories will describe how they engage in the work of the Task-force in the reporting period, including the sub-groups they engaged with.

NewsGuard has been regularly participating in the meetings of the Code of Practice signatories, including the meeting about the conversion of the code into a Code of Conduct.

Monitoring of the Code

Commitment 38

The Signatories commit to dedicate adequate financial and human resources and put in place appropriate internal processes to ensure the implementation of their commitments under the Code.

We signed up to the following measures of this commitment

Measure 38.1

In line with this commitment, did you deploy new implementation measures (e.g. changes to your terms of service, new tools, new policies, etc)?

No.

If yes, list these implementation measures here

Do you plan to put further implementation measures in place in the next 6 months to substantially improve the maturity of the implementation of this commitment?

No.

If yes, which further implementation measures do you plan to put in place in the next 6 months?

Measure 38.1

Relevant Signatories will outline the teams and internal processes they have in place, per service, to comply with the Code in order to achieve full coverage across the Member States and the languages of the EU.

QRE 38.1.1

Members of NewsGuard’s European team (including Roberta Schmid, Managing Editor and Vice-President Partnerships for Germany and Austria, and Virginia Padovese and Chine Labbé, co-Managing Editors and Vice-Presidents for Partnerships for Europe,) are responsible for implementing and monitoring the company's commitments under the code in Germany, Austria, Italy, and France.

Commitment 39

Signatories commit to provide to the European Commission, within 1 month after the end of the implementation period (6 months after this Code’s signature) the baseline reports as set out in the Preamble.

We signed up to the following measures of this commitment

In line with this commitment, did you deploy new implementation measures (e.g. changes to your terms of service, new tools, new policies, etc)?

No.

If yes, list these implementation measures here

Do you plan to put further implementation measures in place in the next 6 months to substantially improve the maturity of the implementation of this commitment?

No.

If yes, which further implementation measures do you plan to put in place in the next 6 months?

Commitment 41

Signatories commit to work within the Task-force towards developing Structural Indicators, and publish a first set of them within 9 months from the signature of this Code; and to publish an initial measurement alongside their first full report.

We signed up to the following measures of this commitment

Measure 41.1 Measure 41.2 Measure 41.3

In line with this commitment, did you deploy new implementation measures (e.g. changes to your terms of service, new tools, new policies, etc)?

No.

If yes, list these implementation measures here

Do you plan to put further implementation measures in place in the next 6 months to substantially improve the maturity of the implementation of this commitment?

No.

If yes, which further implementation measures do you plan to put in place in the next 6 months?

Commitment 42

Relevant Signatories commit to provide, in special situations like elections or crisis, upon request of the European Commission, proportionate and appropriate information and data, including ad-hoc specific reports and specific chapters within the regular monitoring, in accordance with the rapid response system established by the Task-force.

We signed up to the following measures of this commitment

In line with this commitment, did you deploy new implementation measures (e.g. changes to your terms of service, new tools, new policies, etc)?

No.

If yes, list these implementation measures here

Do you plan to put further implementation measures in place in the next 6 months to substantially improve the maturity of the implementation of this commitment?

No.

If yes, which further implementation measures do you plan to put in place in the next 6 months?

Commitment 43

We signed up to the following measures of this commitment

In line with this commitment, did you deploy new implementation measures (e.g. changes to your terms of service, new tools, new policies, etc)?

No.

If yes, list these implementation measures here

Do you plan to put further implementation measures in place in the next 6 months to substantially improve the maturity of the implementation of this commitment?

No.

If yes, which further implementation measures do you plan to put in place in the next 6 months?

Commitment 44

Relevant Signatories that are providers of Very Large Online Platforms commit, seeking alignment with the DSA, to be audited at their own expense, for their compliance with the commitments undertaken pursuant to this Code. Audits should be performed by organisations, independent from, and without conflict of interest with, the provider of the Very Large Online Platform concerned. Such organisations shall have proven expertise in the area of disinformation, appropriate technical competence and capabilities and have proven objectivity and professional ethics, based in particular on adherence to auditing standards and guidelines.

We signed up to the following measures of this commitment

In line with this commitment, did you deploy new implementation measures (e.g. changes to your terms of service, new tools, new policies, etc)?

No.

If yes, list these implementation measures here

Do you plan to put further implementation measures in place in the next 6 months to substantially improve the maturity of the implementation of this commitment?

No.

If yes, which further implementation measures do you plan to put in place in the next 6 months?