ONLINE PLATFORMS – The SPLIIIT CASE (Paris Civil Court, 29 April 2026, No. 22/07774)
Spliiit: When Sharing Passwords Becomes Complicity in Violating the Terms of Service.
“Can I borrow your password?” Who has never asked that question?
While subscription sharing is not unlawful by nature, can it lawfully become a fully-fledged commercial activity?
By a judgment dated 29 May 2026, which may still be appealed, the Paris Judicial Court ruled against Spliiit in proceedings brought notably by Apple, Disney and Netflix.
The failed interim proceedings
In 2022, the claimants had first sought interim measures.
They relied in particular on alleged trademark infringement, unfair competition and complicity in the breach of their terms of use.
However, the interim relief judge refused to order the requested measures, as they required a prior assessment of the lawfulness of the service offered, which in turn required an analysis of each platform’s terms of use.
That issue raised a serious dispute, which was incompatible with the powers of the interim relief judge.
The claimants were therefore invited to bring proceedings on the merits.
The successful action on the merits
The Paris Judicial Court recalled that, while a contract only creates obligations between the parties, third parties must nevertheless respect the legal situation created by that contract.
In practice, an intermediation platform may therefore incur tort liability where it facilitates, on a commercial basis, the breach of the terms of use of a third-party service.
The Court held that the sharing of Apple, Netflix and Disney subscriptions with third parties connected exclusively for that purpose amounted to a breach of the platforms’ contractual terms.
A FAQ does not amount to compliance
Spliiit states on its website that sharing through its platform is lawful “as long as it complies with the platforms’ rules of use” and that Spliiit “guarantees compliant and secure use.”
However, the Court specifically sanctioned this inaccurate information provided to users and found that Spliiit had committed acts of complicity in the breach of the platforms’ terms of use, unfair competition and trademark infringement.
A significant ruling
Spliiit was notably ordered, subject to a penalty payment, to disclose its financial data in order to enable the claimants to quantify their loss.
This decision illustrates a broader trend: digital liability is increasingly shifting towards the design of services, with courts paying closer attention to business models and to the behaviours that platforms organise or encourage.
FIRSH expert insight:
At FIRSH, we regularly assist project founders and innovative companies before the launch of their activities, in order to secure their business model before it is brought to market.
Legal compliance is not an obstacle to entrepreneurship. It is often a condition for its long-term sustainability.
