This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2024 WIPO IP Judges Forum.
Session 5
First Instance Court of Paris, France [2024]: Société du Figaro v Société Twitter France and Société Twitter International Unlimited Company, N° RG 23/55581 / First Instance Court of Paris, France [2024]: L’Agence France-Presse v S.A.S Twitter France and Société Twitter International Unlimited Company, N° RG 23/56102
Date of judgment: May 23, 2024
Issuing authority: First Instance Court of Paris
Level of the issuing authority: First Instance
Type of procedure: Judicial (Commercial)
Subject matter: Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights)
Plaintiff: Société du Figaro and L’Agence France-Presse
Defendant: Société Twitter France and Société Twitter International Unlimited Company
Keywords: press publishers, press publications in digital format, communication to the public, copyright exceptions
Basic facts: Several French press companies, including Le Figaro, Les Echos, Le Parisien Libéré, Société Editrice du Monde, Le Nouvel Observateur, Télérama, Courrier International, Malesherbes Publications, and Le Huffington Post, filed a legal request against Twitter International Unlimited Company and SAS Twitter France. They sought access to specific data necessary to assess how their content is used on the "X" platform (formerly known as Twitter). This data was considered crucial for determining the appropriate compensation they believed was owed to them under neighboring rights laws (Case 1).
Similarly, l’Agence France-Presse (AFP) filed a request demanding that Twitter International Unlimited Company and SAS Twitter France disclose comparable data and pay AFP 400,000 euros in compensation for the use of their content under these same neighboring rights (Case 2).
Held: On May 23, 2024, the Paris First Instance Court issued two orders in favor of the press companies and AFP. The court mandated that Twitter International Unlimited Company disclose key data related to the publications in question, including:
The Court ruled that the law, specifically Article L. 218-4 of the Intellectual Property Code, requires such disclosure to determine whether Twitter had infringed on the neighboring rights of the press publishers (Case 1). However, the Court denied AFP's request for immediate payment, stating that online public communication service operators are not automatically required to pay the remuneration set by law. Nonetheless, the Court left open the possibility of future payment if a violation of rights is proven in a full trial.
Relevant holdings in relation to Copyright: The neighboring rights in question were established by the European Union (EU)’s Directive 2019/790 on April 17, 2019, and implemented by French Law No. 2019-775 on July 24, 2019. These rights aim to ensure that news agencies and press publishers are fairly compensated in an era where digital technologies have made press publications widely accessible online.
The Court acknowledged the EU directive's goal of protecting press publishers' investments through effective neighboring rights. It emphasized the EU directive’s importance in preserving a free and pluralistic press, which is crucial for ensuring the availability of reliable information. The Court noted that the widespread online availability of press publications complicates the process of obtaining licenses that would enable fair compensation.
The Court further clarified that the exceptions provided by the EU directive and French law, which protect individual users who publish content online, do not extend to Twitter. Twitter, as the operator of its platform, cannot claim the rights of its users because it does not represent them.
The Court also highlighted that the EU directive should not be misinterpreted as a tool for optimizing or safeguarding Twitter's business model, as this was neither the intent nor the outcome sought by the legislation. Any approach that compromises the EU directive’s objectives must be rejected.
Lastly, the Court ensured that the legal measures did not unduly restrict the free movement of information society services, which are protected under EU law, and it limited some of the more expansive requests for data disclosure.
Relevant legislation: