Ambush Marketing and Social Media: A Judicial Illustration Based on the Exploitation of the French National Rugby Team

In a decision dated 6 January 2026¹, the Paris Judicial Court delivered a particularly instructive ruling on the use of sporting events for commercial communication purposes on social media. Brought by the French Rugby Federation (Fédération Française de Rugby - FFR), the case concerned the communication strategy implemented by the company Royaltiz during the 2022 Six Nations Tournament.

Although the court does not explicitly use the term "ambush marketing", the decision offers a textbook illustration of this practice in a digital context. The judgment combines an infringement of the organiser’s exclusive exploitation rights with a finding of parasitic behaviour arising from a coordinated social media strategy.

‍

I. The Unauthorised Exploitation of a Sporting Event: Infringement of the Organiser’s Exclusive Rights

The court first recalls the principle set out in Article L.333-1 of the French Sports Code, according to which the organiser of a sporting event holds the exclusive right to exploit that event, including its image and all related visual content.

In this case, the FFR, as the delegated federation responsible for organising matches of the French national rugby team, held exclusive rights over the exploitation of the Six Nations matches played in France.

The dispute arose from a LinkedIn post published by Royaltiz on 20 March 2022, featuring a photograph taken at the end of the France–England match, showing the French team receiving the Six Nations trophy. The image was used to promote Royaltiz’s platform, accompanied by a commercial message presenting it as "the only platform in the world where you can invest in the best rugby players".

The court found that:

• the photograph was taken during an event organised by the FFR,
• it was used for promotional purposes,
• and no authorisation had been granted by the organiser.

The subsequent deletion of the post following a formal notice was interpreted as implicit recognition of the wrongful nature of the use. The court therefore held that Royaltiz had infringed the organiser’s exclusive right of exploitation.

‍

II. A Clear Case of Ambush Marketing Through Social Media Activity

The most significant contribution of the judgment lies in its analysis of parasitic behaviour, which the court characterises as a form of digital ambush marketing.

‍

1. A Communication Strategy Aligned with the Sporting Calendar

The FFR demonstrated that Royaltiz published no fewer than 26 posts between February and March 2022, corresponding exactly to the duration of the Six Nations Tournament.

These publications:

• referred directly or indirectly to the French national team,
• reused content originating from official or well-known rugby-related accounts,
• were disseminated at key moments during the competition,
• and served to promote Royaltiz’s commercial services and player-related tokens.

The court emphasised that the frequency, timing and coherence of these publications excluded any hypothesis of casual or neutral commentary. Instead, they revealed a structured strategy designed to benefit from the visibility and popularity of the tournament.

‍

2. Rejection of the "Freedom of Information" Argument

Royaltiz argued that its posts merely relayed publicly available information and therefore fell within the scope of freedom of expression.

The court firmly rejected this argument, recalling that:

• sharing or retweeting content engages the liability of the person who disseminates it,
• even where the content originates from third parties,
• and even in the absence of explicit commentary.

The court further noted that the systematic association of Royaltiz’s commercial messaging with content relating to the French national team demonstrated an intentional attempt to benefit from the event’s reputation and economic value.

This behaviour was therefore characterised as parasitic, in that Royaltiz sought to profit from the investments, reputation and promotional efforts of the FFR without bearing any of the associated costs.

‍

III. A Balanced Decision: Injunction Granted, Damages Denied

While the court clearly identified unlawful conduct, it adopted a measured approach as regards remedies.

‍

1. Injunction to Cease the Parasitic Conduct

The court ordered Royaltiz to remove the offending publications, subject to a daily penalty payment in the event of non-compliance. However, it refused to issue a general injunction prohibiting future communications, holding that the assessment of parasitic conduct must remain within the judge’s control and cannot be left to the discretion of one party.

‍

2. Rejection of the Claim for Damages

The FFR sought damages of €280,000, arguing that this amount corresponded to the value of an official partnership.

The court rejected this claim, holding that:

• although the existence of harm could be inferred from the parasitic conduct,
• the quantum of damages must still be proven,
• and the evidence provided did not allow the court to assess the alleged loss or to establish a reliable equivalence with sponsorship fees.

As a result, the court limited its ruling to injunctive relief and awarded only procedural costs and legal expenses.

‍

Conclusion

This decision provides a particularly clear illustration of how ambush marketing may now take shape through social media strategies rather than traditional advertising.

The ruling confirms that:

• exploiting the visibility of a sporting event without authorisation may constitute parasitism,
• repeated and coordinated social media activity can amount to unlawful appropriation of economic value,
• and freedom of expression does not extend to commercial strategies designed to benefit from another party’s investments.

By articulating these principles in the context of digital communication, the Paris Judicial Court delivers a valuable precedent for sports organisations, brands and digital platforms alike, and reinforces the legal tools available to combat ambush marketing in the age of social media.