Certainly, the decline in investments is a legitimate concern, but the Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. case reminds us that agencies act within their discretionary power, not by mere reflex. Concluding that the 18% decrease in audiovisual investments in Australia directly triggered new streaming quotas is an oversimplification of regulatory causality. Such a government measure, targeting platforms like Netflix and Prime Video, stems from a broader political will to support local production, often pre-existing and not purely reactive to an economic data point. For example, the French law on audiovisual communication established funding obligations well before any specific crisis, illustrating a proactive regulatory approach rather than a mere conjunctural reaction.