Re-regulating the European Public Sphere: EMFA, DSA and the Anti-SLAPP Directive in the EU’s Post-Regulatory State

European public spheres are under threat and appear to be in need of protective regulation. While the EU was initially considered a regulatory state, it has subsequently been criticised for deregulating national policy frameworks and for having entered a post-regulatory era. This is particularly evident in media policy, which the EU approached primarily through its market- and competition-related competences, leading to deregulation in the 1980s and 1990s. Crucially, post-regulatory does not mean less legislation or fewer legal provisions. Instead, regulation is reorganised around meta-regulation, ethics, transparency and soft instruments, and is characterised by more porous boundaries between public and private actors. In other words, a post-regulatory order leads to re-regulation rather than straightforward deregulation. This paper analyses EU media re-regulation. It defines re-regulation as new, denser and more legalised constraints and which take post-regulatory forms such as risk management, internal procedures, supervisory boards and structured dialogues. Using three recent EU legislation in the media and communications field (the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Anti-SLAPP Directive), the paper asks whether these acts constitute a “re-regulation” of digital platforms, media systems and civil litigation, and what this reveals about the evolving character of EU regulation as well as about its problem-solving capacity as a post-regulatory polity. Relying on critical policy analysis, the paper combines policy-instrument analysis, problem-framing analysis and an allocation-of-authority perspective. First, it maps the instrument mix in each act (hard rules, procedural obligations, soft law, organisational reforms), situating these choices against earlier phases of liberalisation and self-regulation. Second, it examines how the Commission and co-legislators construct the “problems” to be addressed – as risks, market failures, abuses of procedure or threats to democracy – and how these framings legitimise particular regulatory responses. Third, it analyses how authority and participation are allocated between EU institutions, national regulators and courts, and private actors such as platforms and media organisations, thereby shedding light on new configurations of multi-level and public–private governance. Empirically, the paper draws on qualitative document analysis of: (i) the final legal texts (articles and recitals); (ii) legislative proposals, impact assessments and key Council and Parliament documents; and (iii) selected stakeholder submissions and early implementation practices (e.g. the designation and supervision of very large platforms under the DSA, the establishment of the EMFA Board, and initial debates on the transposition of the Anti-SLAPP Directive). The analysis suggests that EMFA, DSA and Anti-SLAPP are not merely instances of more regulation, but part of a broader shift towards re-regulation through risk management, procedural obligations and corporatised governance. They respond to concrete challenges – the power of very large platforms, media capture and state interference, and abusive litigation against journalists and activists – yet do so via distinctive policy instruments: systemic risk assessments and audits (DSA), independence and transparency requirements mediated by a European Board (EMFA), and procedural filters and cost rules in cross-border litigation (Anti-SLAPP).