Defamation attorney

The absolute priority is to preserve evidence before it disappears: timestamped screenshots, exact URLs, identification of the author (handle, profile, date and time). Securing evidence through a judicial officer's report (huissier / commissaire de justice) protects its evidentiary value. At the same time, do not respond publicly to the author, which can fuel litigation and trigger a counterclaim.

Immediately contact a lawyer to qualify the statements (defamation, insult, denigration) and choose the procedural path: LCEN/DSA notification to the platform, urgent proceedings before the president of the judicial tribunal, or criminal complaint with civil party constitution.

Three complementary levers are available. Notification to the platform under the LCEN (as amended by the SREN Act of 21 May 2024) and the DSA (EU Regulation 2022/2065, applicable since 17 February 2024) requires a diligent review by the host.

If the host fails to act, accelerated proceedings on the merits before the president of the judicial tribunal (Article 6-3 LCEN) yield a removal order under penalty. For manifestly unlawful content targeting a minor or with a discriminatory nature, the judge rules on a tightened timetable.

The same method applies to online reviews: see our article on removing a defamatory fake Google review.

Anonymity is no absolute shield.

On the basis of Article 145 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, the judge may be petitioned either through adversarial interim proceedings or, more efficiently, by way of an ex parte request (non-adversarial procedure): anonymity lifting by ex parte request allows obtaining, without alerting the platform or the suspected author, an order compelling hosts (Google, Meta, X, TikTok) and ISPs to disclose connection data identifying the author.

Article 6, V, A of the LCEN (referring to Article L. 34-1 of the CPCE) provides a complementary basis. This procedure is critical, as data is retained for only one year. Once the author is identified, formal demand, civil party complaint and direct citation become possible.

The limitation period is very short: 3 months from first publication (Article 65 of the 1881 Act), extended to one year for discriminatory defamation (Article 65-3). For online content, the period runs from the date of upload, not from the victim's discovery (Cass. crim., 19 September 2006, No. 05-87.230). An identical republication does not trigger a new period.

This brevity requires immediate legal consultation.

Once the author is identified and evidence consolidated, two main routes allow to obtain conviction and damages, the choice depending on strategy and the case file.

Direct citation before the criminal court (criminal route, based on the Act of 29 July 1881) is preferred when the statements are clearly defamatory and the victim seeks a criminal conviction, forced publication of the judgment and full compensation: it requires strict formal rigour (precise qualification of the statements, compliance with the 3-month limitation). Civil interim proceedings or proceedings on the merits (based on Article 1240 of the French Civil Code for denigration, or Article 9 of the Civil Code for invasion of privacy) are preferred when urgent removal prevails, when the facts amount to commercial denigration rather than defamation stricto sensu, or when the 3-month deadline has elapsed (the civil limitation being 5 years). Civil party constitution before the senior investigating judge also remains available to trigger an investigation.

Courts take into account the audience of the medium, virality, duration online, the victim's profile and the concrete consequences. The conviction may include forced publication of the judgment and definitive removal of the content.

Public defamation against private individuals (Article 32, paragraph 1 of the 1881 Law) occurs when defamatory statements are made through any means of publication within the meaning of Article 23: print media, television, radio, websites, social media, public speeches, or public meetings.

It is punishable by a fine of €12,000; the prison sentence was abolished by the law of 15 June 2000. No prison sentence is provided either for defamation against institutions, courts, tribunals, armies or public administrations (Article 30: €45,000 fine) or for defamation against magistrates, public officials or holders of public authority (Article 31: same fine, together with a community-service penalty). Imprisonment (1 year and €45,000) only remains for discriminatory defamation under Article 32 paragraphs 2 and 3. Online defamation (forums, social media, blogs) falls under this same regime of public defamation, as digital platforms constitute a means of publication within the meaning of the law.

Non-public defamation (Article R.621-1 of the French Criminal Code) concerns statements made in a restricted setting, to a limited number of persons sharing a community of interests (private correspondence, restricted conversation, message in a closed group). It constitutes a class 1 petty offense (€38 fine, Article 131-13 CP). When the non-public defamation is discriminatory (origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability), it is upgraded to a class 5 petty offense punishable by a €1,500 fine (Article R.625-8 CP). The boundary between public and non-public defamation depends on whether the circle of dissemination is open or closed.

Commercial denigration is an unfair competition fault based on Article 1240 of the French Civil Code, consisting of spreading statements or information discrediting a competitor's products or services to divert their clientele.

Unlike defamation (which targets a person's honor and falls under the 1881 Law), it targets the offerings and can be established even if the facts are accurate, when their dissemination is malicious or disproportionate. The statute of limitations is five years (Article 2224 of the Civil Code).

Discriminatory defamation (Article 32, paragraph 2 of the 1881 Law), sometimes associated with cyberbullying, adds an additional dimension of severity when defamatory statements target persons because of their origin, their membership or non-membership of an ethnic group, nation, alleged race, or specific religion, or because of their sex, sexual orientation, or disability.

This type is severely punished: up to one year imprisonment and €45,000 fine, with the statute of limitations extended to one year.

The first step is to identify and gather evidence of defamatory statements. This may include screenshots, image rights documentation, audio or video recordings, testimonies, or any other relevant content. Gathering evidence is crucial to establish the veracity of facts before a court and for your attorney to prepare a solid defense.

A judicial officer may be needed to certify evidence before proceedings.

It is essential to react quickly. First steps include filing a complaint with civil party constitution, either at the police station or directly with the investigating judge. In some cases, a cease-and-desist letter may be sent to the author of the statements demanding they cease the defamatory acts and remove the incriminated content.

Victims have several judicial recourses. They may file a criminal complaint, involving an investigation and potentially a trial. They may also claim damages by constituting as a civil party.

Our firm has deep expertise in lifting anonymity (similar to identity theft cases) from online hosts (Google, META, TikTok, etc.). On the basis of Article 145 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, we petition the President of the competent Judicial Court either through adversarial interim proceedings or, most often, by way of an ex parte request: anonymity lifting by ex parte request (non-adversarial procedure) secures an order by surprise effect, without alerting the platform or the author, and thereby freezes connection data (IP addresses, identifiers, logs) before any dilatory manoeuvre.

Once anonymity has been lifted, it is possible to send a cease-and-desist to the author, file a complaint with civil party constitution effectively, or directly summon them to court to obtain content removal and full compensation for damages.