Key Legal Issues
- Defamation & Media Accountability: The ruling upholds that misleading editing and selective reporting can amount to actionable defamation under French law.
- Freedom of Expression vs. Reputation Protection: The court reinforced that press freedom does not extend to manipulating hidden camera evidence to falsely imply misconduct.
- Precedent for International Business Law: This case underscores the legal vulnerability of media groups in cross-border business defamation disputes.
- Burden of Proof & Rushes as Evidence: The court ruled that the unedited hidden camera rushes (raw footage) contradicted the documentary’s allegations, validating Chetcuti Cauchi’s claims. The rules of public policy of the 1881 law do not prevent the subject of a "hidden camera" report from obtaining (in summary proceedings) and producing (before the press judge) the rushes of the said report to establish the distortion of his or her words and the corresponding bad faith.
Legal Significance in Defamation Law
What makes this a landmark case? One of the most crucial aspects of this ruling is its precedential value in French defamation law. The Court of Cassation, being France’s highest judicial authority, has cemented the legal responsibility of media organisations when it comes to fair and accurate reporting. The ruling clarifies that journalists cannot distort facts under the guise of investigative reporting. In this case, the court rejected the “good faith” defence by M6, ruling that journalistic freedom does not extend to misrepresenting evidence to imply wrongdoing.
Moreover, the court’s reliance on unedited rushes as key evidence in proving manipulated reporting underscores a new legal threshold for media accountability. The rules of public policy in Article 29 of the Law of 29 July 1881 were found not to prevent the subject of a "hidden camera" report from obtaining (in summary proceedings) and producing (before the press judge) the rushes of the said report to establish the distortion of his or her words and the corresponding bad faith.
In paragraph 9 of its judgement, dismissing the appeal of the media executives against their conviction for criminal defamation, the French Supreme Court ruled that:
"...the contested judgment essentially states that the judge in summary proceedings, by a decision dated 11 December 2019, ordered the company that was holding the footage to hand over these materials to the civil parties, who had requested them under Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, due to their necessity for the defence in a defamation case that they were considering initiating, in order to counter the defendant’s claim of good faith. 10. The judges concluded that, since evidence is free in criminal matters, these materials, which had been legally obtained by a judicial decision, could not be deemed inadmissible. 11. "In making this determination, and given that the contested materials were obtained by means of a decision from a judge who was not the one ruling on the merits, the Court of Appeal rightfully justified its decision. 12. Thus, the ground must be dismissed." CRIM 11th March 2025.
By establishing that raw footage can disprove defamatory allegations, the ruling strengthens defamation defences for businesses and individuals subjected to deceptive editing. Commenting on this decision, French lawyer Henri de Beauregard, noted:
This is an apparent reversal compared to the Jouyet/Fillon affair, a balance between equality of arms and the right to evidence, between the imperative of freedom of the press and the requirement of honesty of information.
Impact on Media Ethics & Investigative Journalism
The ruling has significant implications for media ethics and the limits of investigative journalism. The M6 documentary selectively edited voice-over narration and footage to create a misleading impression of CC Advisors Ltd, rather than the firm's best practices in its investment migration work as evidenced by the original footage, choosing instead to negatively portray the firm's practices. The court’s determination that such selective editing is legally defamatory sets a powerful precedent for future cases.
This case marks one of the first instances in France where a major broadcaster was held accountable for misleading reporting through edited footage. By reinforcing that press freedom does not permit reckless disregard for the truth, the ruling establishes higher standards for journalistic integrity. This precedent is likely to prompt a review of editing practices across European media outlets, ensuring that investigative programs uphold objectivity rather than editorial manipulation.
Implications for Business Reputation and Investment Migration
Beyond media law, the ruling is a major victory for corporate reputation protection,particularly in highly regulated industries like law, finance, and investment migration. The case highlights the significant financial and reputational harm that misleading media reports can inflict on businesses. The fact that the Court of Cassation upheld the damages awarded reinforces that companies operating within legal frameworks must be protected from defamatory attacks that distort public perception.
Given that the investment migration industry has often been a target of sensationalised media narratives, this ruling will likely impact how journalists cover residency and citizenship-by-investment programs. Future reports on these topics will require greater factual accuracy and transparency to avoid legal repercussions.
A Landmark Decision for European Defamation Law
This case has broader implications beyond France, as it could influence European defamation law and media regulations across the continent. The principles established in this ruling—particularly regarding selective editing and rushes as evidence—could be cited in future cases in other EU jurisdictions.Courts across Europe may adopt similar reasoning when assessing defamation claims against media outlets.
This is a significant moment for European defamation law. The court’s emphasis on unedited rushes as evidence, even if they could incriminate the producers themselves, will shape future defamation lawsuits involving media organisations.
Dr Jean-Philippe Chetcuti, Managing Partner, Chetcuti Cauchi
Furthermore, this ruling reinforces the idea that corporations and professionals have a legal right to protect their reputation from misleading narratives, balancing press freedom with responsible journalism. The Chetcuti Cauchi ruling is now a key reference point for businesses and legal professionals seeking recourse against damaging media coverage.
Conclusion
The French Court of Cassation’s decision is a landmark judgment that redefines the boundaries between investigative journalism and defamation. By upholding the legal liability of media organizations for deceptive reporting, the ruling strengthens defamation protections, safeguards business reputations, and establishes a new standard for media ethics. This case will shape defamation jurisprudence in France and across Europe, serving as a powerful precedent for holding media outlets accountable when their reporting distorts the truth.
Our Defamation Practice
At Chetcuti Cauchi Advocates, we are at the forefront of international defamation law, representing high-profile individuals, global families, and businesses in complex, cross-border reputation matters. Our recent landmark victory before the Supreme Court of France underscores our expertise in securing justice for clients facing defamatory attacks. As a leading European defamation law firm, we provide strategic legal remedies, crisis management, and proactive reputation protection across multiple jurisdictions. Whether navigating media litigation or enforcing privacy rights, we stand as trusted advisors in safeguarding our clients’ reputations worldwide.
