Illegal Online Gambling Advertising: Paris Court of Appeal Upholds the Conviction of Meta Following Action by the Barrière Group

Paris Court of Appeal, 29 January 2026 (decision not yet published in full)

By a decision handed down on 29 January 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal upheld an interim order requiring Meta Platforms to put an end to the dissemination of fraudulent advertisements promoting illegal online gambling, unlawfully using the name and reputation of the Barrière Group.

Although the full text of the ruling has not yet been published, this decision already stands out as a significant development in the evolving legal framework governing platform liability for online advertising, at the crossroads of digital law, trademark protection and gambling regulation.

‍

1. Background: the fraudulent use of the Barrière brand to promote illegal gambling

The dispute arose from the dissemination, on Meta’s platforms (notably Facebook and Instagram), of sponsored advertisements redirecting users to unauthorised online gambling websites, falsely suggesting a connection with the Barrière Group.

These advertisements:

• used the Barrière name and visual identity,
• created the impression of an official partnership,
• promoted gambling services prohibited under French law.

Given the repeated appearance of such content and the absence of effective preventive measures, the Barrière Group initiated emergency proceedings before the Paris Judicial Court, seeking an order requiring Meta to put an end to these unlawful practices.

‍

2. The first-instance decision: an injunction based on manifest illegality

In interim proceedings, the Paris Judicial Court ruled in favour of the Barrière Group.

The court held that:

• the advertisements constituted a manifest infringement of trademark rights and reputation;
• they promoted an activity strictly regulated and, in this case, unlawful under French law;
• their continued dissemination amounted to a manifestly unlawful disturbance justifying immediate judicial intervention.

Meta was therefore ordered to implement all necessary measures to prevent the recurrence of such advertisements, going beyond a mere takedown obligation and requiring genuine preventive action.

Meta appealed the decision, arguing in particular that it could not be held liable as a hosting provider and that it merely acted as a neutral intermediary.

‍

3. The Court of Appeal’s ruling: confirmation of Meta’s liability

In its judgment of 29 January 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal fully upheld the first-instance order.

The Court found in particular that:

• the promotion of illegal gambling services constitutes, by nature, a manifestly unlawful activity;
• the use of the Barrière brand significantly aggravated the misleading nature of the advertisements;
• the repeated and structured dissemination of such content ruled out any claim of isolated or accidental publication.

Most importantly, the Court rejected Meta’s reliance on its status as a hosting provider.

It held that:

• the advertisements were paid-for content,
• distributed and optimised through Meta’s advertising tools,
• and monetised by the platform itself.

Accordingly, Meta could not be regarded as a passive or neutral intermediary and could not benefit from the liability exemptions traditionally afforded to hosting providers.

‍

4. Legal significance and implications

This ruling forms part of a broader judicial trend aimed at strengthening the responsibility of digital platforms, particularly in relation to advertising content.

It provides several important clarifications:

• online advertising does not benefit from the same liability regime as mere hosting;
• platforms have a heightened duty of vigilance where regulated or illegal activities are concerned;
• trademark infringement and illegal gambling constitute sufficiently serious infringements to justify swift judicial intervention.

The decision also aligns with the underlying philosophy of the Digital Services Act, even though it was adopted independently of its formal application, by affirming that large platforms cannot escape liability where they actively contribute to the dissemination of unlawful content.

‍

5. A landmark decision pending full publication

At the time of writing, the full reasoning of the Court has not yet been made public.

The present analysis is therefore based on the operative part of the decision and information released through official communications and specialised legal press.

Once published, the decision is expected to provide further clarification on:

• the precise legal basis relied upon by the Court,
• the scope of the preventive obligations imposed on platforms,
• and the articulation between national law and EU digital regulation.

Nevertheless, this ruling already stands as a landmark decision in French and European digital law, confirming that the monetisation of online advertising entails a corresponding duty of legal vigilance.