Paris Court of Appeal, Division 1 - Chamber 2, 25 September 2025, No. 24/17261
In a significant ruling delivered on 25 September 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal confirmed the order issued by the judge in summary proceedings requiring X Internet Unlimited Company (formerly Twitter) to disclose to several leading French press publishers the audience and advertising data necessary to calculate the remuneration owed under Article L.218-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code, which implements the neighbouring right established by Directive (EU) 2019/790.
This decision confirms a strict and operational reading of the transparency obligation imposed on online platforms and reinforces the practical enforceability of the neighbouring right of press publishers.
Article L.218-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code, transposing Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright in the Digital Single Market, obliges online content-sharing services to provide press publishers and news agencies with all information relating to the use of their publications, as well as all other elements necessary for a transparent assessment of the remuneration due to them.
Invoking this provision, several publishers — including Le Figaro, Le Monde, Télérama, Courrier International, L’Obs and The Huffington Post — requested detailed data from X regarding the visibility and monetisation of their content on the platform.
When the parties failed to reach an agreement, the publishers obtained, on the basis of Article 145 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, a judicial order requiring X to disclose a comprehensive set of data: impressions, click-through rates, shares of queries related to current events, direct and indirect advertising revenues, the types of data collected, and the operation of its recommendation algorithms.
X appealed the order, claiming in particular that the request fell within the scope of Directive 2004/48/EC (IPRED) on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, and that such disclosure would contravene Article 8 of the Digital Services Act (DSA), which prohibits imposing a general monitoring obligation on online intermediaries.
The Court rejected both arguments.
It held that the dispute does not concern the enforcement of intellectual property rights under IPRED, but rather the implementation of a statutory transparency obligation under the neighbouring right regime created by Directive 2019/790.
As for the DSA, the Court found it inapplicable: the publishers were not asking X to monitor or filter content, but merely to extract and transmit existing data relevant to the assessment of their remuneration.
The Court emphasised that X cannot invoke technical impossibility. Posts reproducing articles from press publishers systematically include the URL of the source website, which allows X — through its APIs — to identify, aggregate and export the required information.
Since the entry into force of the neighbouring right in 2019, the company was legally obliged to adapt its technical tools to ensure compliance with this duty of transparency.
The Court further noted that X’s own privacy policy confirms that user data may be stored for extended periods to meet legal obligations, thereby refuting the claim that historical data were unavailable.
The Court also clarified the scope of the injunctions: they concern any post reproducing, even partially, an article from one of the publishers and linking to its website, as well as advertising revenues directly or indirectly associated with such posts — including revenues generated by subsequent searches made during the same user session.
By confirming the first-instance order and maintaining the daily penalty of €3,000, the Paris Court of Appeal affirms that transparency is a binding legal obligation, not a mere principle of cooperation.
The Court thus extends to social media platforms the informational standard already applied to Google by the French Competition Authority, requiring platforms to disclose both usage data and associated revenue streams in order to establish the economic value derived from the dissemination of press content.
The ruling sets a clear precedent: online platforms cannot invoke the DSA or technical constraints to evade their statutory duty of transparency under French law. It establishes a coherent European standard linking data, economic value, and legal responsibility — a decisive step towards a fairer redistribution of digital revenues between platforms and the press.
