Internet law, as a single omnibus statute, does not exist in Georgia. The operative rules for internet content are gathered in the media-service and video-sharing-platform chapters of the broadcasting law — a regime built on the transposition of the European model for digital services — and are joined by the copyright law's online-enforcement provisions. Applying foreign frameworks directly in Georgia is a mistake. This page explains which laws operate and what the state may restrain, on the basis of articles three, forty-five-three and forty-five-five of the broadcasting law.
The Legislative Perimeter
Under article three, the legislation operating in the spheres of media services and video-sharing-platform services comprises the Constitution of Georgia, the international treaties of Georgia, the Organic Law — the Electoral Code of Georgia, the broadcasting law itself, the laws on national regulatory bodies and on copyright and neighbouring rights, and other legislative and subordinate normative acts. This legislation must be interpreted in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights, the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and other international legal norms binding on Georgia.
The perimeter also defines the equality of persons: a citizen of a foreign state and a legal entity, as well as a stateless person, enjoy the same rights and duties as a citizen of Georgia or an entrepreneurial entity, unless the legislation provides otherwise. For a platform operating in the internet space this means that a foreign operator is equally framed by the Georgian rules.
Free Reception of Media Services
Article forty-five-three governs the regime of foreign services: the free reception and unrestricted distribution in Georgia of media services authorized or licensed in other states is permitted. The exception is narrow: the commission may, on the basis of a corresponding decision, temporarily not permit the distribution of such a service where the provider flagrantly and grossly violates the relevant requirements of the law, endangers the protection of public health, and committed the violation no fewer than twice during the last 1 year.
Even then the commission must notify the provider in writing of the presumed violation and of the measures it plans to take should the violation be repeated, and must give the provider the opportunity to submit its position at a session, in writing and orally. This procedural guarantee marks the boundary of legitimate state interference with internet content: restriction is a last resort, not a first form of reaction.