Iraq's Communications and Media Commission (CMC) opened a public consultation on September 13, 2026 on the draft Regulation for Organizing Digital Content in Iraq, issued under Coalition Provisional Authority Order No. 65 of 2004 as amended by Order 100. The draft covers digital content published, circulated, promoted or made available to the public inside Iraq, or directed at that public. Comments close at the end of official working hours on October 12, 2026. Late filings will not be adopted.
The 80-article text is the content-standards layer the CMC wants next to, not instead of, the Framework Regulations for Digital Platforms and Services, in force since February 17, 2025. Platforms serving Iraqi users, licensed Iraqi digital media and digital-media influencers have until October 12 to file article-level comments to [email protected]. Work from the official CMC notice and the full draft PDF.
Who is in scope, and does this replace the 2025 Framework?
No. Articles 1 and 73 call this a standalone subject-matter regulation that complements the Framework. The Framework still governs platforms and the three regulatory tools (licensing, registration, notification) due by February 17, 2026. This draft governs lawful versus prohibited content and the duties of those who publish it.
Articles 5 and 6 apply, on the facts of each case, to licensed digital media under CMC competence; platforms and digital service providers, within their regulatory duties; the digital-media influencer (regular, public, audience-directed activity with a material effect on public opinion or behaviour); the general user, only within statutory limits; and fake or impersonated accounts used to commit a violation or evade liability. A pen name alone is not a fake account. Private correspondence is out of scope unless it becomes published. The territorial hook is market-facing: content available inside Iraq or directed at the Iraqi public, so Meta, TikTok, Google/YouTube, Snap, X and Telegram sit in the same perimeter as Iraqi media houses.
What would platforms, influencers and licensed media have to change?
Article 37 would require platforms, according to the service and their technical and legal capacity, to cooperate with the CMC, operate complaint channels, respond to official notices, limit prohibited content once a violation is established, apply age-rating tools, and not ignore lawful CMC decisions. The same article says this is not a duty of general prior monitoring of all content, except where other laws already require it. That tracks Article 10: the CMC does not exercise prior censorship and acts after publication.
Influencers (Article 36) would have to verify information to a reasonable degree, disclose funded or advertising content where non-disclosure would mislead, and correct or remove content once a violation is established. Licensed digital media (Article 35) would add source-retention, news/opinion/advertising separation, and correction of inaccurate information. Article 77 allows a voluntary identification path for influencers. Non-registration is not itself a penalty and is not a condition for exercising freedom of expression.
What fines and takedown powers would the CMC have?
Article 47 lists a graduated toolkit: warning; correction or a right of reply; removal; restricting access or blocking; a written non-repeat undertaking; a financial fine; time-limited account, page, channel or site suspension; a recommendation to close in serious or repeated cases; and court referral where the facts look like a crime. Article 49 grades violations from first-degree (national security, public order, incitement to violence, terrorism or hatred, grave risk to children) through second-degree (public morals or health, serious public-interest deception) and third-degree (individual rights or privacy) to a fourth bucket for failure to respond to notices.
| Violation grade (Art. 49) | Fine ceiling (Art. 50) |
|---|---|
| First-degree | IQD 15,000,000 |
| Second-degree | IQD 10,000,000 |
| Third-degree | IQD 5,000,000 |
| Regulatory or procedural | IQD 3,000,000 |
Article 55 treats repetition and use of a fake or impersonated account to hide identity as aggravating. The CMC may then double the fine, without exceeding twice the Article 50 ceiling. Article 52 requires blocking, where used, to stay limited to the offending item. Article 80 would bring the regulation into force on approval by the CMC Board (Council of Commissioners). Article 78 would then let the CMC grant an adaptation period for funded-content disclosure, reporting channels, age rating, and correction procedures. Urgent measures for serious or imminent harm would still be available (Article 65).
What should teams file before October 12, 2026?
File comments, in official form or to [email protected], that cite the article number, the proposed text or amendment, and the justification. Priority comments for platforms are Article 5 (directed-at-the-public hook), Article 37 (complaint channels, notice response, no general prior monitoring), Article 28 (AI-generated deceptive content), Articles 47 and 52 (removal versus blocking), and Article 50 (fine ceilings). Influencer-ops should mark Articles 6, 36, 39 and 77.
Continuous, per-jurisdiction real-time monitoring surfaces this kind of CMC consultation the moment it publishes, before Board approval converts a draft into a binding regulation.
Subscribe to the free newsletter
Confirm whether each service you operate is available in Iraq or directed at Iraqi users, gap-assess Article 37 against the 2025 Framework you should already hold, lodge article-level comments by close of official hours on October 12, 2026, and brief trust-and-safety, licensing and influencer-ops on the Board-approval trigger in Article 80. Obsidian will follow the file from this consultation through to the in-force text.
