Tbilisi, June 3, 2025 — The ruling Georgian Dream party has initiated formal complaints with the National Communications Commission against three major opposition-leaning television stations—Formula, TV Pirveli, and Mtavari—alleging that journalists and anchors used “anti-government” terminology in violation of recent amendments to the Broadcasting Law. A public hearing on these complaints is scheduled for June 5, raising alarms among media watchdogs about growing censorship and shrinking space for independent journalism in Georgia.
New Broadcasting Rules and a Shifting Media Landscape
In a series of legislative maneuvers since late 2024, Georgian Dream has systematically enhanced state control over media. On February 24, 2025, parliament passed amendments to the Law on Broadcasting, broadening the National Communications Commission’s authority to enforce coverage standards. Under the previous regime, self-regulatory bodies within each broadcaster handled disputes over editorial content. The February changes transferred that power to the Commission, allowing any interested party to lodge complaints directly with the state regulator.
Further clarifications adopted on April 1, 2025 extended the Commission’s oversight to include social media content produced by broadcasters. These April amendments formalized which expressions on-air or online now fall under official scrutiny. At the same time, Georgian Dream also passed two “‘foreign agent’” laws in 2024 and early 2025—on foreign influence transparency and foreign agents registration—plus tightened grant rules, effectively curbing independent outlets’ access to international funding.
The combination of legal restrictions has hit Georgia’s independent media particularly hard: Mtavari TV ceased broadcasting in February 2025 due to financial difficulties, leaving Formula and TV Pirveli as the two largest opposition platforms still on air. Meanwhile, anti-government protests that erupted in late November 2024—sparked by GD’s announcement to suspend Georgia’s EU membership bid—underscore the broader stakes of media freedom in a polarized political environment.
New Complaints: Texts, Terms, and the June 5 Hearing
During the first week of June 2025, Georgian Dream filed separate complaints against Formula, TV Pirveli, and Mtavari, citing a range of phrases that party leaders deem unlawful. The complaints—each accompanied by a power of attorney signed by Prime Minister and GD chairman Irakli Kobakhidze, appointing lawyer Natia Bokuchava as the ruling party’s representative—claim that journalists failed to distinguish between opinion and fact, violating Articles 54, 59¹, and 76 of the amended Broadcasting Law.
Contested Terms (combined list):
- “illegitimate parliament” / “illegitimate government”
- “so-called parliament speaker”
- “oligarch’s MP” / “oligarch’s servant” / “oligarchic regime” / “conditions of an oligarchic regime”
- “Ivanishvili regime” / “regime’s city court” / “regime prisoners” / “regime”
- “abduction of people”
- “Russification”
- “clans in the judiciary” / “clan-based justice”
- “MP of the pro-Russian regime” / “meeting of the Russian commission”
- “threats of imprisonment” / “elimination of opponents” / “repressions”
- “de facto member of parliament” / “using a mandate for punishment”
In addition, one complaint cites a social media post by Formula referring to PM Kobakhidze as “the regime’s prime minister.” By listing these terms as “personal assessments/accusations…not separated from facts,” Georgian Dream demands that the Commission impose “appropriate sanctions within its authority.” The hearing is set to take place on Thursday, June 5, 2025, when the Commission will review the alleged violations.
Details & Direct Quotes
From Georgian Dream’s Complaints
“The journalist’s phrases […] are personal assessments/accusations that are not separated from facts. Distinguishing between fact and opinion is an important standard in journalism.”
—Excerpt from GD’s complaint
Each complaint references specific broadcast clips and social media posts. In the complaint against TV Pirveli, GD objects to language such as “illegitimate government,” “Ivanishvili’s regime” (referring to billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, GD’s founder), “oligarch’s servant,” and “de facto MP.” A parallel complaint against Mtavari—which suspended broadcasts in February—cites nearly identical terminology.
Opposition Reactions
“This is the beginning of yet another wave of repression against critical media. The TV channels face the threat of multiple fines and financial sanctions, creating a real risk of their broadcasting being suspended. The complaint will be publicly reviewed by the regulatory commission on June 5.”
—Tornike Migineishvili, TV Pirveli’s lawyer
“This is censorship aimed at the final destruction of the media, which is already in an extremely dire financial situation. They will challenge us on every word. This law was designed to dismantle the media.”
—Vakho Sanaia, Formula’s evening news anchor
“Straight out of the Orwell book…attempts to control every word in media and to start banning words. [These measures mark] the beginning of a new wave of repression [and] show a sign of weakness of this government.”
—Salome Zurabishvili, Georgia’s fifth president
Expert Commentary (Transparency International Georgia)
“It’s clear why Ivanishvili’s Georgian Dream is suing critical TV channels. He doesn’t want the public to know the truth about what’s happening in Georgia. If you analyze exactly which news content the ruling party ‘fears,’ you’ll see a pattern:
- Investigative reports into ruling-party corruption…
- Critical assessments by NGOs or experts…
- Coverage of protests or human rights violations…
- Reporting on election violations…
- Satire or sarcasm aimed at the government…
In short, the ruling party has developed a manual for ‘safe media’: Don’t mention government accountability, don’t report on corruption, don’t cover protests as justified, don’t point to systemic interference, and be ‘impartial,’ meaning—stay silent.”
—Eka Gigauri, Executive Director, Transparency International Georgia
Analysis: Reactions, Civil Society Concerns, and Implications
Civil Society & Media Advocacy
The Media Advocacy Coalition, a network of press-freedom NGOs, described GD’s complaints as “legal repression” and urged the Commission to uphold journalistic standards rather than rubber-stamp political vendettas. A European Parliament resolution has also singled out Kakha Bekauri, head of the Communications Commission, for potential sanctions as part of Bidzina Ivanishvili’s “network of enablers.”
Wider Implications
Chilling Effect: With words like “regime,” “oligarch,” or “clan-based justice” now subject to potential fines or license suspension, journalists risk self-censorship. Investigative reporting on corruption, analyses by NGOs like TI or ISFED, coverage of protests, and even satirical commentary may be deemed unlawful.
Financial Vulnerability: Fines can be calculated as a percentage of a station’s budget, a critical threat when opposition outlets are already strapped for cash.
Evolving Enforcement: Broadcasters once handled complaints internally; now a state regulator can unilaterally impose penalties. That shift transforms every viewer phone call, every Facebook post, into a possible infraction.
Political Context: Since opposition MPs boycotted the 2024 elections and were expelled from parliament, Georgian Dream has effectively been able to pass legislation without meaningful parliamentary opposition—fast-tracking restrictions on media and civil society.
EU Accession Impact: These developments occur against the backdrop of stalled EU membership talks. International partners have warned that media freedom is a litmus test for Georgia’s democratic credentials.
As Georgian Dream ramps up legal pressure on Formula, TV Pirveli, and Mtavari, Georgia’s independent media landscape faces a critical juncture. The National Communications Commission’s June 5 hearing will test whether new broadcasting regulations serve the public interest or merely shield the ruling party from scrutiny. For opposition outlets already struggling financially, the threat of fines or license suspension could spell the end of critical voices on Georgian television.
Looking ahead, media organizations must decide whether to comply—risking self-censorship—or challenge the complaints in court, at the cost of legal fees and further political backlash. Civil society groups, international monitors, and Georgian viewers will be watching closely, as the outcome will signal whether Georgia’s democracy can withstand mounting pressure on free expression, or whether it risks sliding further into a climate of government-imposed silence.