By judgment dated 7 May 2025, the Third Chamber, Third Section of the Paris Judicial Court, ruling under the expedited proceedings on the merits (Article 481-1 of the French Code of Civil Procedure), ordered the major French Internet service providers — Bouygues Télécom, Orange, Free, SFR, and SFR Fibre — to implement all appropriate measures to prevent access to the website https://news.dayfr.com from within French territory, on the grounds of large-scale unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted press content.
The proceedings were initiated by a broad coalition of press publishers, including S.A.S. Centre France Hebdos, S.A. La Montagne, S.A. Le Populaire du Centre, S.A. La République du Centre, S.A. Libération, S.A. La Dépêche du Midi, S.A. Le Télégramme, and the professional trade union Alliance de la Presse d’Information Générale (APIG).
The claimants relied on Articles L.122-4 and L.336-2 of the French Intellectual Property Code. The latter provision allows the president of the judicial court, under expedited proceedings, to order any appropriate measure to prevent or cease an infringement of copyright or related rights against any party likely to contribute to the infringement — including Internet service providers (ISPs).
They also invoked Article L.331-1 para. 2 of the same code, which grants standing to duly constituted professional rights management bodies, and Article L.2132-3 of the French Labour Code, which allows professional unions to take legal action to defend the collective interests of the profession.
The Court found that the conditions of Article L.336-2 IPC were met, with evidence of significant copyright infringement documented in bailiff reports. These reports showed that the website “news.dayfr.com” had been reproducing, without authorization, numerous press articles protected by copyright, all originally published by the claimant press companies.
The Court noted:
“The disputed website enables Internet users to access protected works without the authorization of the rights holders, notwithstanding the slight modifications made to the reproduced articles.”
The Court further observed the anonymous and concealed nature of the website, stating that it lacked the mandatory legal notices required by the French Law on Confidence in the Digital Economy (LCEN), was hosted by Cloudflare Inc., and the identity of the domain name holder was not disclosed.
In light of this, the Court found:
“These elements demonstrate that those who contribute to the dissemination of the content present on the disputed website are aware of its wholly or almost wholly illicit nature, and highlight the difficulty for authors and producers to take legal action against those responsible for the site.”
Relying on Article L.336-2 IPC, interpreted in light of the CJEU’s case law — notably the Scarlet Extended and Promusicae rulings — the Court emphasized the need to strike a fair balance between the protection of intellectual property rights, the freedom to conduct a business, and the right to information.
Nevertheless, in view of the facts of the case, the Court found that the manifestly illicit and systematic nature of the infringements warranted a blocking order:
“The domain name <dayfr.com>, which enables access to the disputed website, and whose entirely or essentially unlawful character has been established, must be subject to blocking measures.”
The judgment:
Finally, the Court noted that in the event of circumvention — such as changes to the domain name or website structure — the claimants would be entitled to bring the matter again before the Court, either under expedited proceedings on the merits or in summary proceedings.
This ruling represents a notable first in French judicial practice, addressing unauthorized dissemination of press content via anonymous websites, which exploit indexing and automated rewriting technologies to capture web traffic and associated advertising revenue.
Although the judgment does not refer to it explicitly, the operation of the infringing site resembles what observers increasingly refer to as “content farms”, often powered by generative or semi-automated AI models, repurposing quality journalistic content for purely commercial gain, in blatant disregard of copyright law and media pluralism.
This decision paves the way for similar legal actions, including against platforms that reproduce protected content under the guise of algorithmic aggregation. It affirms that press publishers have at their disposal a procedural mechanism that is not limited to pursuing infringers directly (who are often anonymous or offshore), but also allows action against technical intermediaries, provided the legal criteria are met.
