[The IPKat] [Guest post] Paris Court of Appeal clarifies platforms’ obligations under Article 15 DSM Directive in twin decisions against X

[Eleonora Rosati]

[Guest post] Paris Court of Appeal clarifies platforms’ obligations under Article 15 DSM Directive in twin decisions against X

 Eleonora Rosati Wednesday, February 11, 2026 - Article 15 DSM Directive, copyright, france, Guest post, Jean-Sébastien Mariez, Laura Godfrin, platforms, press publishers' right, X

The IPKat has received and is pleased to host the following guest contribution by Katfriends Jean-Sébastien Mariez and Laura Godfrin (both Momentum Avocats) on two decisions concerning the construction and application of the French transposition of Article 15 of the DSM Directive, which introduced a related right for press publishers [IPKat here]. Here’s what they write:

Paris Court of Appeal clarifies platforms’ obligations under Article 15 DSM Directive in twin decisions against X

by Jean-Sébastien Mariez and Laura Godfrin

On 25 September 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal issued two rulings (here and here), both concerning Article 15 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 (DSM) Directive), providing some guidance as to the scope of platforms’ obligations under this provision. Although rendered in separate cases – one brought by Agence France-Presse (AFP), one of the world’s largest and oldest news agencies, and the other by several major French newspaper publishers – the Court addressed the same core issues in a unified manner, adopting an approach that appeared favourable to rights holders.

Procedural background

At the outset, it is important to clarify that both cases, brought as summary proceedings (référé), were aimed solely at obtaining the disclosure of documents and data from X (formerly Twitter), rather than at determining liability under the related right.

Both matters revolved around applications for data-disclosure injunctions requiring X to provide detailed metrics and underlying data essential for assessing the remuneration owed under Article L.218‑4 of the French Intellectual Property Code (IPC). Under that provision (which goes beyond the explicit wording of Article 15), platforms must not only base remuneration on all revenues, direct and indirect, derived from the use of press publications, but are also required to provide publishers and agencies with all data necessary for a transparent evaluation of such remuneration.

The Paris first-instance court (Tribunal judiciaire de Paris) granted the injunctions, ordering X to disclose a range of commercial and engagement data, including the number of impressions of posts containing press content, engagement metrics, advertising revenues generated in France, and estimates of direct and indirect revenues linked to press content and third-party posts linking to publishers’ sites. The Court found that these requests were relevant, proportionate, and necessary for enabling a proper evaluation of remuneration, even before any substantive determination of liability.

On appeal, the Court upheld the injunctions, confirming the requested data as legally admissible, proportionate, and technically feasible. The Court emphasized the platforms’ duty of transparency and reinforced the publishers’ right to access critical information at an early stage of proceedings. While this strengthens publishers’ position, it also places a substantial evidentiary burden on platforms prior to any determination of liability, even though uncertainties may remain at this stage as to whether the services provided by the platform fall within the scope of the related right.

In parallel, it is also worth noting that, due to X’s non‑compliance with the first-instance injunctions in the AFP proceedings, the Paris first‑instance court, in a decision dated 8 January 2026, ordered the platform to pay €170,000 in astreinte (penalty payments), underscoring the Court’s determination to enforce compliance and penalize delays in the disclosure of data essential for assessing remuneration.

All the roads lead to Luxembourg now?

That being said, and with regard specifically to the appeal decisions, it should be noted that, while the Court addressed highly complex issues in these proceedings, some aspects will likely require confirmation or further clarification by the CJEU (Streamz, C‑663/24; Meta, C‑797/23), particularly concerning the scope of the right, the calculation of remuneration, and platforms’ obligations and monitoring duties.

Platforms “use” user-generated content: the Court’s functional approach

One of X’s principal arguments was that it does not “use” press publications because users – not the platform – upload and share content. Contrary to this submission, the Court adopted a functional and economic approach: X operates a communication service that organizes, displays, and monetizes press content for French users. As such, the platform derives commercial value from the presence of press publications and therefore falls within the scope of Article L.218‑4 IPC.

This finding is doctrinally significant. It clarifies that platform liability under Article 15 does not depend on the identity of the uploader, but rather on the platform’s role in the economic exploitation of press content. The Court signalled that platforms cannot avoid Article 15 obligations by invoking the autonomy of users.

This position, however, remains debatable. Article L218‑2 IPC and Article 15 DSM Directive apply specifically to acts by online public communication services, not individual users. In addition, while Article 6(1) DSA limits platform liability for user-posted content absent actual knowledge of illegality, the decision does not clarify how the neighboring rights regime interacts with this limited liability, leaving a key question of legal interplay unresolved.

The narrow scope of Article 15 exemptions for platforms

X invoked two types of exemptions under the Directive, seeking to extend them to the platform itself: the non-commercial user exemption and the very short-extract or isolated-words exemption. More specifically, X argued that, because individual users may benefit from these exemptions, the platform hosting or facilitating such user-generated content should similarly be exempt from remuneration obligations. The Court rejected both arguments.

It clarified that the non-commercial user exemption is strictly personal and applies exclusively to natural persons acting in a non-commercial capacity. According to the Court, platforms, which operate for commercial purposes, cannot rely on this exemption merely because some content is user-generated. The result is a strictly individualized exclusion: platforms remain liable for hosting and monetizing posts that reproduce or link to press publications, even when those posts originate from individual users.

As for the very short-extract or isolated-words exception, while it remains applicable in principle, the Court stressed that it only applies in a manner that does not undermine the effectiveness of the related right. In particular, according to the Court, the exclusion does not extend to posts containing links to press publications accompanied by thumbnails or identifiable reproductions of content, even if such posts are generated by individual users.

Consent via platform’s terms of service: no implied licence

X further argued that AFP and publishers had consented to free reuse of their content by accepting the platform’s terms of service. The Court rejected this defence, holding that the purpose of the related right’s regime is to avoid situations in which publishers must acquiesce to unilaterally imposed contractual conditions.

From a legal-theoretical perspective, the Court embraced a strong public-order rationale: the statutory right to remuneration cannot be waived through general terms of use (TOS). This reflects a strong stance in favor of publishers, while the DSM Directive does not explicitly address such TOS-based implied licences, making the Court’s position arguably stricter than the Directive itself.

Challenges based on EU law (TRIS, country-of-origin, free movement, DSA) rejected

X invoked several EU law objections:

• Failure to notify the French transposition under the TRIS procedure;
• Violation of the country-of-origin principle under the E-Commerce Directive;
• Restriction on the free movement of services; and
• Imposition of prohibited general monitoring under the DSA.

The Court dismissed all these arguments. In short, it held that a transposition of an EU directive is not subject to TRIS notification, that national IP enforcement aimed at the French public is compatible with the country-of-origin principle, that the measure governs the exercise – not the provision – of services, and that the requested disclosure concerns targeted, identifiable posts rather than general monitoring.

However, these conclusions are not beyond debate, as the French transposition extends the related right to press agencies and introduces specific disclosure mechanisms – elements arguably going beyond a strict transposition.

Proportionality, feasibility, and data architecture

Both decisions reaffirmed the legitimacy and proportionality of the requested data. X had argued that its data-retention limits and technical architecture made certain disclosures impossible. The Court considered these issues but ultimately maintained the injunctions, while introducing clarifications in the AFP case to tailor the scope to data that is actually available and to define, with greater precision, the categories of covered posts and the types of revenue to be disclosed.

Importantly, according to the Court, no new monitoring systems are required, ensuring compatibility with the DSA’s prohibition on general monitoring, while preserving transparency and access to relevant data.

Final thoughts

With these decisions, the Paris Court of Appeal seems to take a clear stance in favor of robust publisher’s rights, using these twin rulings to address several crucial points: the possibly of an early access to data (even before liability has been determined), the platform’s functional “use” of content, and the rejection of implied consent via terms of service. With these decisions, the Paris Court of Appeal also sends a clear message: in its view, platforms cannot evade their remuneration obligations simply by relying on the fact that content is user-generated.

Yet, this firm line must be read with caution. Despite this seemingly strong position, several points remain uncertain. Ongoing legal ambiguities – particularly regarding hosting exemptions and the interplay with EU law, the absence of a generalized monitoring obligation as set out in Article 8 DSA, the precise scope of Article 15 exemptions, the calculation of remuneration, and what obligations may be unilaterally imposed on the platform responsible for such remuneration – are underscored by the fact that the interpretation of Article 15 DSM Directive by European courts has given rise to preliminary questions referred by Belgian (C-663/24) and Italian (C-797/23) courts, currently pending before the CJEU. These questions are likely to directly impact the scope of the press publications covered, the calculation of remuneration, and platform obligations and monitoring duties.

In short, while the Court’s decisions provide important guidance, full clarity will only emerge once the CJEU addresses these issues, leaving the ultimate contours of platform obligations and publisher rights in a state of cautious anticipation.

Do you want to reuse the IPKat content? Please refer to our 'Policies' section. If you have any queries or requests for permission, please get in touch with the IPKat team.