From Hertzian waves to hyperlinks – What the BSA’s online decision means for your business

On 31 March 2026, the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) decided it has jurisdiction over an online media outlet that livestreams to New Zealand audiences. This is the first time the BSA has clearly said that an online-only provider is a “broadcaster” under the Broadcasting Act 1989. The decision matters for anyone distributing media or entertainment content into New Zealand.

Key takeaways

• The BSA may treat some “always-on” livestream channels as broadcasters, even if they operate online only.

• If you look and behave like a broadcaster (continuous programming, public access, monetisation), you may need to comply with broadcasting standards and handle complaints.

• Most on-demand services remain outside the Broadcasting Act for now, but other regimes (especially classification/objectionable content rules) can still apply.

• This is a governance and risk issue as much as it is a legal one—particularly for brand and reputational management.

Why this decision matters now

For most streaming businesses, “media law” in New Zealand has felt like something that applies to traditional TV and radio, not to online channels or platforms. This decision is a signal that the analogue-era Broadcasting Act is being stretched to cover some forms of internet streaming, even before Parliament completes its long-promised review of media and entertainment regulation.

In practical terms, a small but growing group of online media businesses will now need to comply with the Code of Broadcasting Standards and be subject to the complaints process of the BSA. Understanding whether you are in that group—and how close you are to its edges—is now a governance and risk question, not just a legal curiosity.

The media and entertainment regulatory framework

New Zealand’s media and entertainment rules were built around three core technologies—telephone, radio and television—and have since had to absorb the internet, social media, gaming, livestreaming and video-on-demand.

Today, five main statutes shape the modern media and entertainment regulatory environment:

• Broadcasting Act 1989 – creates the BSA, sets broadcasting standards and complaints processes for radio and television broadcasters (and, courtesy of the BSA decision, some online livestreamers).

• Radiocommunications Act 1989 – manages access to and use of the radio spectrum, which still underpins traditional broadcast and wireless transmission.

• Telecommunications Act 2001 – regulates key telecommunications services and infrastructure, forming part of the delivery layer for modern broadcasting and streaming.

• Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 (FVPC Act) – governs objectionable and restricted content across formats, and expressly covers commercial video-on-demand and certain livestreams.

• Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 – deters, prevents and mitigates harm caused to individuals by digital communications and provides victims of harmful digital communications with quick and efficient means of redress. Although this Act is much newer than the others, it is still over 10 years old (consider how technology and means of communication has changed in that time).

Despite the arrival of global streaming platforms and user-generated content, this framework has not been comprehensively redesigned. This is a big task for New Zealand legislators. Technology is rapidly evolving and any change to the laws would need to be carefully managed to ensure that the core principals are valid, clear and survive further evolution of how content is shared.

In the meantime, media businesses and content providers must grapple with a patchwork regime where online content can fall into gaps or be forced into definitions that were never designed for it.

What the Broadcasting Act actually does

At its core, the Broadcasting Act 1989 does two things.

• It creates the BSA and requires it to issue and oversee the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand.

• It establishes a complaints process: viewers or listeners complain first to the broadcaster and, if unsatisfied, can refer the matter to the BSA for an independent decision.

The Act applies to anyone who “broadcasts” programmes, defined as transmitting programmes by radio waves or other telecommunication means for reception by the public. There is, however, a key carve-out: content delivered “on the demand of a particular person for reception only by that person” is not broadcasting (the “on-demand exception”).

In simple terms, the regime is aimed at content that is pushed out on a schedule to a general audience, rather than pulled by users choosing what to watch or listen to, when they want it.

The means by which people can consume content now (whether sport, music, video or audio) continues to evolve and the new methods to make content available and for it to be consumed don’t always naturally fit within the old assumed ways of consumption.

BSA and online content: the slow shift

The BSA has been asking Parliament to modernise the Broadcasting Act for more than 20 years. In 2019, as internet distribution became increasingly mainstream, it started a review of how the Act might apply to online content.

Parliament’s first response was to use the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 as the main vehicle for regulating online harms. In 2020 it extended that Act to a small, named group of commercial video-on-demand (CVOD) providers. The CVOD providers were listed in Schedule 4, signalling a stopgap rather than a full overhaul of New Zealand media law.

The Christchurch terrorist attack in 2019 exposed serious flaws in how the law dealt with livestreamed content, particularly extremist offensive content. Subsequent amendments to the FVPC Act made livestreaming objectionable content a criminal offence and gave the Chief Censor and officials clearer powers to classify, restrict and require takedown of such material.

At the same time, the Government signalled a broader review of content regulation. On the strength of that, the BSA paused its own review and indicated it would:

• Not extend Broadcasting Act levies or publicity notices to online content providers; but

• Consider complaints about online providers on a case-by-case basis as they emerged.

That is the context for the 2026 decision.

The 2026 decision: who is an “online broadcaster”?

In the 2025 complaint decided on 31 March 2026, the BSA found that Platform Media NZ Limited, an online outlet that livestreams, is a broadcaster under the Broadcasting Act. This means it must comply with broadcasting standards and is within the BSA’s complaints jurisdiction.

In doing so, the BSA set out the profile of an online broadcaster. Key characteristics include:

• A company holding itself out as a media outlet;

• Earning revenue from its operations (including advertising); and

• Providing content that is:

o Streamed online in a linear form (continuous programming during hours of operation); and

o Readily accessible to the New Zealand public via internet-connected devices (for example smartphones, smart TVs and computers).

This is not a blanket rule for the internet. Instead, it draws a line around certain kinds of online media businesses that look and behave very much like traditional broadcasters, just delivered over the internet rather than over spectrum.

Who is not a broadcaster (for now)?

The BSA also took care to say who it does not regard as an online broadcaster:

• Individuals posting content online on an ad hoc basis;

• Editorial content currently covered by the New Zealand Media Council;

• Content delivered by Netflix, Apple TV, Prime Video, Disney+, YouTube and similar platforms, which generally fall within the “on-demand exception”; or

• Overseas entities streaming content for New Zealand audiences (although the BSA considers the Broadcasting Act capable of extraterritorial application where content is received by New Zealanders).

This means the Act is unlikely to extend to online video calls, podcasts, ceremonial livestreams or, in general, CVOD providers. It estimated there is only a limited number of entities that currently qualify as online broadcasters.

In other words, the floodgates remain closed: most online content providers are still outside the Broadcasting Act and the BSA’s direct jurisdiction, even though they may be affected by the FVPC Act if they host or distribute objectionable content.

What this means for businesses and content providers

If you operate in or around media and entertainment in New Zealand, this decision should prompt some targeted questions.

You may need to engage more closely with New Zealand media and entertainment law if you:

• Run a linear livestream channel or “always-on” internet station targeting New Zealand audiences;

• Brand yourself as a news or media outlet and monetise through advertising or sponsorship;

• Aggregate or repackage live content from third parties into a continuous channel; or

• Host or moderate user-generated content that could, in extreme cases, stray into “objectionable” territory under the FVPC Act (for example, violent extremist material).

In these cases, you may now fall within the Broadcasting Act, or at least close enough to it that BSA complaints risk and Code compliance should be considered alongside classification obligations, privacy, advertising, and consumer law compliance.

If, on the other hand, you operate a purely on-demand service (for example, a content library where users select what to watch and when), you are more likely to remain outside the Broadcasting Act and within the existing CVOD/classification framework—although this could change as Parliament progresses its planned review.

What’s next?

This decision is deliberately narrow: it is about jurisdiction only, and the substance of the complaint is still to be decided. But it is a significant step in the gradual extension of New Zealand’s broadcasting standards framework into the online environment, sitting alongside a more assertive classification regime that was sharpened in response to the Christchurch terrorist attack and the spread of its livestream.

In a subsequent article, we'll unpack the BSA’s reasoning and response and consider the implications for the planned overhaul of content regulation and for the wider media, technology and telecommunications ecosystem in New Zealand. In the meantime, if you are unsure where your business sits in this evolving regime—or whether your online content strategy could attract BSA or classification scrutiny—it is worth taking stock now rather than waiting for the next complaint.

Need help?

If your organisation runs online channels, livestreams or on-demand libraries into New Zealand, we can help you map the regulatory perimeter (broadcasting standards, classification, privacy and consumer law) and put practical governance steps in place.

‍